= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
"I mean, no one thinks it'll take less time than it takes you to hit Ctrl-C" -- by the way, are you sure about this? Would it be more accurate to say "before you realize you should hit control-C"? Because it seems to me, if it aint goin' FOOM before you realize you should hit control-C (and do so) then.... it aint goin' FOOM.
"The Intelligence Explosion Thesis says that an AI can potentially grow in capability on a timescale that seems fast relative to human experience due to recursive self-improvement. This in turn implies that strategies which rely on humans reacting to and restraining or punishing AIs are unlikely to be successful in the long run, and that what the first strongly self-improving AI prefers can end up mostly determining the final outcomes for Earth-originating intelligent life. " -- Eliezer Yudkowsky, IEM.
I.e., Eliezer thinks it'll take less time than it takes you to hit Ctrl-C. (Granted it takes Eliezer a whole paragraph to say what the essay captures in a phrase, but I digress.)
He doesn't really make any relevant points.
The closest is this:
Contrary to singularity b.s., the AI you invent isn't going to rewrite the laws of physics and destroy the universe before you can hit control-C. Basic space, time, and energy limitations will likely confound your laptop's ambitions to take over the world for quite some time--plenty of time for those who best understand it to toy with what it really takes to make it friendly
Which is really just an assertion that you won't get FOOM (I mean, no one thinks it'll take less time than it takes you to hit Ctrl-C, but that's just hyperbole for writing style). He doesn't argue for that claim, he doesn't address any of the arguments for FOOM (most notably and recently: IEM).
"I mean, no one thinks it'll take less time than it takes you to hit Ctrl-C" -- by the way, are you sure about this? Would it be more accurate to say "before you realize you should hit control-C"? Because it seems to me, if it aint goin' FOOM before you realize you should hit control-C (and do so) then.... it aint goin' FOOM.
He doesn't really make any relevant points.
The closest is this:
Contrary to singularity b.s., the AI you invent isn't going to rewrite the laws of physics and destroy the universe before you can hit control-C. Basic space, time, and energy limitations will likely confound your laptop's ambitions to take over the world for quite some time--plenty of time for those who best understand it to toy with what it really takes to make it friendly
Which is really just an assertion that you won't get FOOM (I mean, no one thinks it'll take less time than it takes you to hit Ctrl-C, but that's just hyperbole for writing style). He doesn't argue for that claim, he doesn't address any of the arguments for FOOM (most notably and recently: IEM).
Ah, thanks, better understand your position now. I will endeavor to read IEM (if it isn't too stocked with false presuppositions from the get go).
I agree the essay did not endeavor to disprove FOOM, but let's say it's just wrong on that claim, and that FOOM is really a possibility -- then are you saying you'd rather let the military AI go FOOM than something homebrewed? Or are you claiming that it's possible to reign in military efforts in this direction (world round)? Or give me a third option if neither of those applies.
He's ignoring everything Friendly AI Proponents have said on the issue , and is attacking a strawman instead of the real reasons FAI people think it's a problem.
Trying to understand here. What's the strawman in this case?
Can you point me to an essay that addresses the points in this one?
So, in other words, absolutely no engagement with the actual ideas/arguments of the people the 'letter' is addressed to.
Clarify?
You should check out project Sifter, which is essentially what you are describing, started in San Diego in the late 90's but now worldwide including NY. http://sifter.org
It is fairly quiet lately due to lack of "heroes" but it only takes one to revive an area and the membership is there (and fairly easy to grow).
(Disclaimer: it's my site. But it's ad-free, no fee -- I just maintain it for the benefit of the members.)
Open to collaborations if you want to merge efforts. I have some solutions brewing for the heroes problem, and other ideas in the pipeline, but limited time to devote to it presently.
[addendum: also check out http://hikethegeek.com ]
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
FAI proponents (Of which I am one, yes) tend to say that, ceteris paribus, an AGI which is constructed without first 'solving FAI'* will be 'Unfriendly', military or otherwise. This would be very very bad for humans and human values.
*There is significant disagreement over what exactly this consists of and how hard it will be.
Do you think people who can't implement AGI can solve FAI?