= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on A Primer On Risks From AI - 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 (33)
No.
Yes.
I don't think it is likely that the world will end in accidental apocalypse in the next century.
Few do - AFAICS - and the main proponents of the idea are usually selling something.
What level on the disagreement hierarchy would you rate this comment of yours?
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
It looks like mostly DH3 to me, with a splash of DH1 in implying that anyone who suggests that our future isn't guaranteed to be bright must be selling something.
There's a bit of DH4 in implying that this is an uncommon position, which implies very weakly that it's incorrect. I don't think this is a very uncommon position though:
* http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/martin_rees_asks_is_this_our_final_century.html
* http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_petranek_counts_down_to_armageddon.html
* http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html
* http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
And Stephen Hawking on AI:
* http://www.zdnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-humans-will-fall-behind-ai/116616
That's a fair analysis of those two lines - though I didn't say "anyone ".
For evidence for "uncommon", I would cite the GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY RESULTS. Presumably a survey of the ultra-paranoid. The figures they came up with were:
Interesting data, thanks.