KatjaGrace comments on Superintelligence 29: Crunch time - Less Wrong

8 Post author: KatjaGrace 31 March 2015 04:24AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (26)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: KatjaGrace 31 March 2015 04:27:58AM 5 points [-]

Do you agree with Bostrom that humanity should defer non-urgent scientific questions, and work on time-sensitive issues such as AI safety?

Comment author: William_S 04 April 2015 09:38:49PM 1 point [-]

I agree in general, but there's a lot more things than just AI safety that ought to be worked on more (ie. research on neglected diseases), and today's AI safety research might reach diminishing returns quickly because we are likely some time away from reaching human level AI. There's a funding level for AI safety research where I'd want to think about whether it was too much. I don't think we've reached that point quite yet, but it's probably worth keeping track of the marginal impact of new AI research dollars/researchers to see if it falls off.

Comment author: diegocaleiro 31 March 2015 06:23:45AM 1 point [-]

Should the violin players at Titanic have stopped playing the violin and tried to save more lives?

What if they could have saved thousands of Titanics each? What if there already was such a technology that could play a deep sad violin song on the background, and project holograms of violin players playing in deep sorrow as the ship sank.

At some point, it becomes obvious that doing the consequentialist thing is the right thing to do. The question is whether the reader believes 2015 humanity has already reached that point or not.

We already produce beauty, art, truth, humor, narratives and knowledge at a much faster pace than we can consume. The ethical grounds on which to act in any non-consequentialist ways have lost much of their strenght.