I’m uncertain of many-worlds, Big World theory, and the reductionist view of identity as not linked to a particular body. If any of those fail, then if this body dies I’m just plain dead, and same for everyone else.
And there are many ways that an unfriendly AI—or no AI at all—could screw things up besides killing everyone instantly.
I’m uncertain of many-worlds, Big World theory, and the reductionist view of identity as not linked to a particular body. If any of those fail, then if this body dies I’m just plain dead, and same for everyone else.
And there are many ways that an unfriendly AI—or no AI at all—could screw things up besides killing everyone instantly.
I understand and agree.
I am curious. What are you more confident of, MWI and reductionism or unfriendly AI according to SI?
As far as I am aware, the Born probabilities are about the only big uncertainty when it comes to MWI.
When it comes to reductionism, the only real puzzle that I can think of is how one could possible build a conscious machine in the Game of Life. It would be really weird to look at the board and say, this 10000x10000 section of the board is consciousness, but the 10x10 section to the left isn’t, nor is this 10k x 10k section of noise.
Ain’t there many more uncertainties when it comes to the urgency and possibility of risks from superhuman intelligence?
ETA My question was triggered by your statement that you are uncertain of many-worlds and reductionism. It seems that people more often proclaim their uncertainty about relatively straightforward ideas like reductionism or cryonics than risks from AI. Which seems weird.
Skeptic: I am uncertain if MWI is the correct interpretation and if cryonics is going to work.
Advocate: Yes, there are some valid objections. Especially MWI is a very complicated subject that a layman is seldom able to judge. But I think there is more that speaks in favor of those ideas than against.
vs.
Skeptic: I am uncertain if AI could undergo explosive recursive self-improvement and take over the universe.
Advocate: The uncertainty isn’t justified. It is straightforward that it will happen soon. The idea is based on years of disjunctive lines of reasoning.
Skeptic: I am uncertain if AI could undergo explosive recursive self-improvement and take over the universe.
Advocate: The uncertainty isn’t justified. It is straightforward that it will happen soon. The idea is based on years of disjunctive lines of reasoning.
How many people fit the second category to that level of certainty? I consider myself an advocate, yet I would fall under the skeptic label given those phrasings.
I’m uncertain of many-worlds, Big World theory, and the reductionist view of identity as not linked to a particular body. If any of those fail, then if this body dies I’m just plain dead, and same for everyone else.
And there are many ways that an unfriendly AI—or no AI at all—could screw things up besides killing everyone instantly.
I understand and agree.
I am curious. What are you more confident of, MWI and reductionism or unfriendly AI according to SI?
As far as I am aware, the Born probabilities are about the only big uncertainty when it comes to MWI.
When it comes to reductionism, the only real puzzle that I can think of is how one could possible build a conscious machine in the Game of Life. It would be really weird to look at the board and say, this 10000x10000 section of the board is consciousness, but the 10x10 section to the left isn’t, nor is this 10k x 10k section of noise.
Ain’t there many more uncertainties when it comes to the urgency and possibility of risks from superhuman intelligence?
ETA My question was triggered by your statement that you are uncertain of many-worlds and reductionism. It seems that people more often proclaim their uncertainty about relatively straightforward ideas like reductionism or cryonics than risks from AI. Which seems weird.
Skeptic: I am uncertain if MWI is the correct interpretation and if cryonics is going to work.
Advocate: Yes, there are some valid objections. Especially MWI is a very complicated subject that a layman is seldom able to judge. But I think there is more that speaks in favor of those ideas than against.
vs.
Skeptic: I am uncertain if AI could undergo explosive recursive self-improvement and take over the universe.
Advocate: The uncertainty isn’t justified. It is straightforward that it will happen soon. The idea is based on years of disjunctive lines of reasoning.
How many people fit the second category to that level of certainty? I consider myself an advocate, yet I would fall under the skeptic label given those phrasings.