ciphergoth comments on Ben Goertzel: The Singularity Institute's Scary Idea (and Why I Don't Buy It) - Less Wrong

32 Post author: ciphergoth 30 October 2010 09:31AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (432)

Comments (432)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: mwaser 30 October 2010 02:18:54PM *  19 points [-]

If Goertzel's claim that "SIAI's arguments are so unclear that he had to construct it himself" can't be disproven by the simple expedient of posting a single link to an immediately available well-structured top-down argument then the SIAI should regard this as an obvious high-priority, high-value task. If it can be proven by such a link, then that link needs to be more highly advertised since it seems that none of us are aware of it.

Comment author: ciphergoth 30 October 2010 04:40:34PM *  6 points [-]

The nearest thing to such a link is Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk [PDF].

But of course the argument is a little large to entirely set out in one paper; the next nearest thing is What I Think, If Not Why and the title shows in what way that's not what Goertzel was looking for.

Comment author: timtyler 31 October 2010 12:29:11PM 4 points [-]

Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk

44 pages. I don't see anything much like the argument being asked for. The lack of an index doesn't help. The nearest thing I could find was this:

It may be tempting to ignore Artificial Intelligence because, of all the global risks discussed in this book, AI is hardest to discuss. We cannot consult actuarial statistics to assign small annual probabilities of catastrophe, as with asteroid strikes. We cannot use calculations from a precise, precisely confirmed model to rule out events or place infinitesimal upper bounds on their probability, as with proposed physics disasters. But this makes AI catastrophes more worrisome, not less.

He also claims that intelligence could increase rapidly with a "dominant" probabilty.

I cannot perform a precise calculation using a precisely confirmed theory, but my current opinion is that sharp jumps in intelligence are possible, likely, and constitute the dominant probability.

This all seems pretty vague to me.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit