It is disappointing that so much airtime was given to such dim-witted hosts. Are there not more reputable / intelligent people Eliezer could spend two hours talking to that don’t seem to have a memory reset every 20 minutes?
It is humorous to count how many times they raise the question “why can’t we make a good AI?”, followed by him explaining, followed by them asking again. On the third time they sounded even more astounded than the first two:
“Wait, so there is no way that we know of to make a good AI??”—around 1 hour 10 min
Edit: I understand and mostly agree with the down-votes but for God’s sake
More specifically, there’s something pretty valuable about conversations like this. Many “reputable / intelligent” people will falsely believe that they understand Eliezer’s position. Such people will often direct the conversation towards non-central points, and generally be less available to change their minds and attend to central points. In a conversation with “dim-witted” or naive hosts, the key points are expressed clearly and repeatedly. That sort of thing often gets through to “reputable / intelligent” listeners better than more advanced conversations.
I think there’s something you’re right about: Some people more familiar with the arguments could’ve given better pushback to the positions, or probed in a more critical way. Perhaps the hosts were chosen for having had little exposure to the existing arguments.
It is disappointing that so much airtime was given to such dim-witted hosts. Are there not more reputable / intelligent people Eliezer could spend two hours talking to that don’t seem to have a memory reset every 20 minutes?
It is humorous to count how many times they raise the question “why can’t we make a good AI?”, followed by him explaining, followed by them asking again. On the third time they sounded even more astounded than the first two:
“Wait, so there is no way that we know of to make a good AI??”—around 1 hour 10 min
Edit: I understand and mostly agree with the down-votes but for God’s sake
More specifically, there’s something pretty valuable about conversations like this. Many “reputable / intelligent” people will falsely believe that they understand Eliezer’s position. Such people will often direct the conversation towards non-central points, and generally be less available to change their minds and attend to central points. In a conversation with “dim-witted” or naive hosts, the key points are expressed clearly and repeatedly. That sort of thing often gets through to “reputable / intelligent” listeners better than more advanced conversations.
Ultimately not constructive
Consider the target audience of this podcast.
I think there’s something you’re right about: Some people more familiar with the arguments could’ve given better pushback to the positions, or probed in a more critical way. Perhaps the hosts were chosen for having had little exposure to the existing arguments.