I did not attack Yudkowsky on the basis that he lacks a degree. As far as I know, that is a question of fact. I did not say, and I do not think, that it is relevant to whether the AI risk idea is valid.
I will. Whether we believe something to be true in practice does depend to some degree on the origin story of the idea, otherwise peer review would be a silly and pointless exercise. Yudkowsky and to a lesser degree Bostrom’s ideas have not received the level of academic peer review that most scientists would consider necessary before entertaining such a seriously transformative idea. This is a heuristic that shouldn’t be necessary in theory, but is in practice.
Furthermore, academia does have a core value in its training that Yudkowsky lacks—a breadth of cross disciplinary knowledge that is more extensive than one’s personal interests only. I think it is reasonable to be suspect of an idea about advanced AI promulgated by two people with very narrow, informal training in the field. Again this is a heuristic, but a generally good one.
This might be relevant if you knew nothing else about the situation, and if you have no idea or personal assessment of the content of their writings. That might true about you; it certainly is not true about me.
Meaning you believe EY and Bostrom to have a broad and deep understanding of the various relevant subfields of AI and general software engineering? Because that is accessible information from their writings, and my opinion of it is not favorable.
I will. Whether we believe something to be true in practice does depend to some degree on the origin story of the idea, otherwise peer review would be a silly and pointless exercise. Yudkowsky and to a lesser degree Bostrom’s ideas have not received the level of academic peer review that most scientists would consider necessary before entertaining such a seriously transformative idea. This is a heuristic that shouldn’t be necessary in theory, but is in practice.
Furthermore, academia does have a core value in its training that Yudkowsky lacks—a breadth of cross disciplinary knowledge that is more extensive than one’s personal interests only. I think it is reasonable to be suspect of an idea about advanced AI promulgated by two people with very narrow, informal training in the field. Again this is a heuristic, but a generally good one.
This might be relevant if you knew nothing else about the situation, and if you have no idea or personal assessment of the content of their writings. That might true about you; it certainly is not true about me.
Meaning you believe EY and Bostrom to have a broad and deep understanding of the various relevant subfields of AI and general software engineering? Because that is accessible information from their writings, and my opinion of it is not favorable.
Or did you mean something else?