You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

hg00 comments on Open thread, Nov. 16 - Nov. 22, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: MrMind 16 November 2015 08:03AM

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

Comments (185)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: g_pepper 18 November 2015 02:32:49AM *  11 points [-]

The latest New Yorker has a lengthy article about Nick Bostrom and Superintelligence. It contains a good profile of Bostrom going back to his graduate school days, his interest in existential threats in general, and how that interest became more focused on the risk of AGI specifically. Many concepts frequently discussed at LW are mentioned, e.g. the Fermi paradox and the Great Filter, the concept of an intelligence explosion, uploading, cryonics, etc. Also discussed is the progress that Bostrom and others have made in getting the word out regarding the threat posed by AGI, as well as some opposing viewpoints. Various other AI researchers, entrepreneurs and pundits are mentioned as well (although neither EY nor LW is mentioned, unfortunately).

The article is aimed at a general audience and so it doesn't contain much that will be new to the typical LWer, but it is an interesting and well-done overview, IMO.

Comment author: hg00 19 November 2015 04:35:09AM 4 points [-]

although neither EY nor LW is mentioned

"There's no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit."

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 20 November 2015 07:33:11PM 1 point [-]

I don't think that's the right explanation in this case.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 21 November 2015 12:50:05PM 1 point [-]

I understood the comment differently: The OP did write the post because the purpose of the Times article was spot on - not because the 'right' people got the credit.

Comment author: g_pepper 22 November 2015 02:02:39AM 0 points [-]

I did not mean to suggest that anyone had been slighted or denied any due credit when I stated that neither EY nor LW was mentioned. As I read the article, I had just been looking for mentions of EY or LW, and I figured that others might as well, so that is why I mentioned it.

No article can cover everything. As Gunnar stated, I thought it was a great article!