No, no, no, no, no. "It is probably better that I don't" simply means that you CAN'T.
Looking at the history of your comments, it seems that you tend to make very brief comments supporting the echo chamber and never back them up.
Pjeby's reply was a solid question/statement but it had absolutely NOTHING to with with an AI's ability to destroy humanity.
You have given absolutely nothing to support your contention. As I've said elsewhere -- Please support me and your community by doing more than throwing cryptic opinionated darts and then refusing to elaborate. You're only wasting everyone's time and acting as a drag on the community.
You have given absolutely nothing to support your contention.
My contention, if you need it to be overt, is that hairyfigment need not doubt his sanity and certainly does not deserve to be laughed at in "TROLLCAPS" or insulted childishly. I expect harry to be able to see the relationship between his reading and Pjeby's comments regarding 'edge cases' since I can infer from his comment that he has already had the necessary insights.
[...] SIAI's Scary Idea goes way beyond the mere statement that there are risks as well as benefits associated with advanced AGI, and that AGI is a potential existential risk.
[...] Although an intense interest in rationalism is one of the hallmarks of the SIAI community, still I have not yet seen a clear logical argument for the Scary Idea laid out anywhere. (If I'm wrong, please send me the link, and I'll revise this post accordingly. Be aware that I've already at least skimmed everything Eliezer Yudkowsky has written on related topics.)
So if one wants a clear argument for the Scary Idea, one basically has to construct it oneself.
[...] If you put the above points all together, you come up with a heuristic argument for the Scary Idea. Roughly, the argument goes something like: If someone builds an advanced AGI without a provably Friendly architecture, probably it will have a hard takeoff, and then probably this will lead to a superhuman AGI system with an architecture drawn from the vast majority of mind-architectures that are not sufficiently harmonious with the complex, fragile human value system to make humans happy and keep humans around.
The line of argument makes sense, if you accept the premises.
But, I don't.
Ben Goertzel: The Singularity Institute's Scary Idea (and Why I Don't Buy It), October 29 2010. Thanks to XiXiDu for the pointer.