This interlude is included despite the fact that Hanson’s proposed scenario is in contradiction to the main thrust of Bostrom’s argument, namely, that the real threat is rapidly self-improving A.I.
I can't say I agree with your reasoning behind why Hanson's ideas are in the book. I think the book's content is written with accuracy in mind first and foremost, and I think Hanson's ideas are there because Bostrom thinks they're genuinely a plausible direction the future could go, especially in the circumstances where recursive self improving AI of the kinds traditionally envisioned turns out to be unlikely or difficult or impossible for whatever reasons. I don't think those ideas are there in an effort to mine the Halo effect.
And really, the book's main thrust is in the title. Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Even if these outcomes are not necessarily mutually exclusive (inc. the possibility of singletons forming out of initially multi-polar outcomes as discussed in p.176 onwards), talking about potential pathways is very obviously relevant, I would have thought.
I think that we are both right.
Hypothetically, if there were some famous university professor who had written at length about the possibility of, I dunno, simulated superintelligent ant hives, then I think that Bostrom might have felt compelled to include a discussion of the "superintelligent ant hive hypothesis" in his book. He's striving for completeness, at least in terms of his coverage of high-level aspects of the A.I. Risk landscape. It would also be a huge slight to the theory's originator if he left out any reference to the "superint...
This is the monthly thread for posting media of various types that you've found that you enjoy. Post what you're reading, listening to, watching, and your opinion of it. Post recommendations to blogs. Post whatever media you feel like discussing! To see previous recommendations, check out the older threads.
Rules: