= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
tim comments on [LINK] Steven Hawking warns of the dangers of AI - 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 (15)
Just spitballing, but I would guess that this type of coverage is a net benefit due to the level of exposure and subsequent curiosity generated by "holy crap what is this thing that could spell doom for us all?" That is, it seems like singularitarian ideas need as much exposure as possible (any press is good press) and are a long way away from worrying about anti-AI picketers. Am I off here?
I think you're correct. Ideas like AGI are mostly unknown by the general public and anything that can make someone curious about that cluster of ideas is probably a good thing.
What's the causal pathway by which coverage like this improves things? If we want technical expertise or research funding, it seems like there are more targeted channels. This could be optimal if we want to make some kind of political move though. What else?