= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on General purpose intelligence: arguing the Orthogonality thesis - 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 (156)
Ok, in that case I would just be wary about people being tempted to cite the paper to AI researchers without having the followup arguments in place, who would then think that their debating/discussion partners are attacking a strawman.
Hum, good point; I'll try and put in some disclaimer, emphasising that this is a partial result...
Thanks. To go back to my original point a bit, how useful is it to debate philosophers about this? (When debating AI researchers, given that they probably have a limited appetite for reading papers arguing that what they're doing is dangerous, it seems like it would be better to skip this paper and give the practical arguments directly.)
Maybe I've spent too much time around philosophers - but there are some AI designers who seem to spout weak arguments like that, and this paper can't hurt. When we get a round to writing a proper justification for AI researchers, having this paper to refer back to avoids going over the same points again.
Plus, it's a lot easier to write this paper first, and was good practice.