= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Houshalter comments on SSC Discussion: No Time Like The Present For AI Safety Work - 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 (13)
I think point 1 is very misleading, because while most people agree with it, hypothetically a person might assign 99% chance of humanity blowing itself up before strong AI, and < 1% chance of strong AI before the year 3000. Surely even Scott Alexander will agree that this person may not want to worry about AI right now (unless we get into Pascal's mugging arguments).
I think most of the strong AI debate comes from people believing in different timelines for it. People who think strong AI is not a problem think we are very far from it (at least conceptually, but probably also in terms of time). People who worry about AI are usually pretty confident that strong AI will happen this century.
In my experience the timeline is not usually the source of disagreement. They usually don't believe that AI would want to hurt humans. That the paperclip maximizer scenario isn't likely/possible. E.g. this popular reddit thread from yesterday.
I guess that would be premise number 3 or 4, that goal alignment is a problem that needs to be solved.
Yeah, you're probably right. I was probably just biased because the timeline is my main source of disagreement with AI danger folks.