= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
John_Maxwell_IV 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)
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.