= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The claim on p257 that we should try to do things that are robustly positive seems contrary to usual consequentialist views, unless this is just a heuristic for maximizing value.
In response to
Superintelligence 29: Crunch time
Does anyone know of a good short summary of the case for caring about AI risk?
In response to
Superintelligence 29: Crunch time
Are there things that someone should maybe be doing about AI risk that haven't been mentioned yet?
In response to
Superintelligence 29: Crunch time
Are you concerned about AI risk? Do you do anything about it?
In response to
Superintelligence 29: Crunch time
Do you agree with Bostrom that humanity should defer non-urgent scientific questions, and work on time-sensitive issues such as AI safety?
In response to
Superintelligence 29: Crunch time
Did Superintelligence change your mind on anything?
In response to
Superintelligence 29: Crunch time
This is the last Superintelligence Reading Group. What did you think of it?
It would be interesting to me to read others’ more free-ranging impressions of where Bostrom gets it right in Superintelligence – and what he may have missed or not emphasized enough.
Does anyone have suggested instances of this? I actually don't know of many.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Bostrom quotes a colleague saying that a Fields medal indicates two things: that the recipient was capable of accomplishing something important, and that he didn't. Should potential Fields medalists move into AI safety research?