AI Risk is mentioned first at 19:40.
Bostrom’s “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis” paper is grossly misquoted.
No object-level arguments against AI Risk are presented, nor are there any reference to object-level arguments made by anyone.
I’m still upvoting the post, because I find it useful to know how AI Risk (and we) are perceived.
It does seem like it attracted an unusually large proportion of downvotes, which is why it’s sitting at just 8.
Likely due to some animosity some folks may feel towards Thiel.
There’s also the Q&A session afterwards, which isn’t nearly as interesting or provocative, but it does reflect what the average Oxford debating union member might be thinking. Or at least that’s my understanding.
AI Risk is mentioned first at 19:40.
Bostrom’s “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis” paper is grossly misquoted.
No object-level arguments against AI Risk are presented, nor are there any reference to object-level arguments made by anyone.
I’m still upvoting the post, because I find it useful to know how AI Risk (and we) are perceived.
It does seem like it attracted an unusually large proportion of downvotes, which is why it’s sitting at just 8.
Likely due to some animosity some folks may feel towards Thiel.
There’s also the Q&A session afterwards, which isn’t nearly as interesting or provocative, but it does reflect what the average Oxford debating union member might be thinking. Or at least that’s my understanding.