All of Štěpán Los's Comments + Replies

Just to be clear, I am not arguing in favour of or against dualism, however, it is not true that if dualism were true, it would explain nothing — it is certainly an explanation of consciousness (something like “it arises out of immaterial minds”) but perhaps is just an unpopular one/suffers from too many problems according to some. Secondly, while I may agree that what you are saying about AC being obvious, this does not really address any part of my argument — many things seemed obvious in the past that turned out to be wrong, so just relying on our intui... (read more)

I know I am super late to the party but this seems like something along the lines of what you’re looking for: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/qYzqDtoQaZ3eDDyxa/distinguishing-ai-takeover-scenarios

1kerry
yea that's cool to see.  Very similar attempt at categorization.  I feel we get caught up often in the potential / theoretical capabilities of systems.  But there are already plenty of systems that fulfill self-replicating, harmful, intelligent behaviors.  It's entirely a question of degrees.  That's why a visual ranking of all systems' metrics is in order I think.   Defining what comprises a 'system' would be the other big challenge.  Is a hostile government a system?  That's fairly intelligent and self-replicating.  etc.

Hi Gerald, thanks for your comment! Note that I am arguing neither in favour of or against doom. What I am arguing though is the following: it is not good practice to group AI with technologies that we were able to iteratively improve towards safety when you are trying to prove AI safety. The point here is that without further arguments, you could easily make the reverse argument and it would have roughly the equal force:

P1 Many new technologies are often unsafe and impossible to iteratively improve (e.g. airhips).

P2 AI is a new technology.

C1 AI is probabl... (read more)