= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Unknowns comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (600)
That be great. I'd be excited to have as many opinions as possible about the SIAI from people that are not associated with it.
I wonder if we could get some experts to actual write a informed critique about the whole matter. Not just some SF writers. Although I think Stross is probably as educated as EY.
What is Robin Hanson' opinion about all this, does anyone know? Is he as worried about the issues in question? Is he donating to the SIAI?
Robin Hanson said that he thought the probability of an AI being able to foom and destroy the world was about 1%. However, note that since this would be a 1% chance of destroying the world, he considers it reasonable to take precautions against this.
That's AI built by a very small group fooming to take over the world at 1%, going from a millionth or less of the rest of the world economy to much larger very quickly. That doesn't account for risk from AI built by large corporations or governments, Darwinian AI evolution destroying everything we value, AI arms race leading to war (and accidental screwups), etc. His AI (80% of which he says is brain emulations) x-risk estimate is higher. He says between 1% and 50%.