= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on Q&A with experts on risks from AI #1 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (66)
If only they hadn't used such low probabilities - I could almost have believed them.
Even with reasonable probabilities, it was pretty clear that Hayes was completely missing the point on a few questions; and if the other two had answered with the length and clarity he did, their point-missing might have been similarly clear.
Sure, but if it was easier for me to not notice them missing the point I might have been able to update more towards no UFAI.