= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on What I would like the SIAI to publish - 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 (218)
So when did the goalposts get moved to proving that hard takeoff is inevitable?
The claim that research into FAI theory is useful requires only that it be shown that uFAI might be dangerous. Showing that is pretty much a slam dunk.
The claim that research into FAI theory is urgent requires only that it be shown that hard takeoff might be possible (with a probability > 2% or so).
And, as the nightmare scenarios of de Garis suggest, even if the fastest possible takeoff turns out to take years to accomplish, such a soft, but reckless, takeoff may still be difficult to stop short of war.
It doesn't even seem hard to prevent. Topple civilization for example. It's something that humans have managed to achieve regularly thus far and it is entirely possible that we would never recover sufficiently to construct a hard takeoff scenario if we nuked ourselves back to another dark age.