Hypothetically, if there were some famous university professor who had written at length about the possibility of, I dunno, simulated superintelligent ant hives, then I think that Bostrom might have felt compelled to include a discussion of the “superintelligent ant hive hypothesis” in his book. He’s striving for completeness, at least in terms of his coverage of high-level aspects of the A.I. Risk landscape. It would also be a huge slight to the theory’s originator if he left out any reference to the “superintelligent ant hive hypothesis”. And finally, Bostrom probably doesn’t want to place himself in the position of arbiter of which ideas get to be taken seriously, when lots of people probably think of lots of parts of A.I. Risk as loony already.
So, I don’t think Bostrom was sitting in his office plotting how to make his book a weaponized credulity meme. But I also felt, from my own perspective, that the inclusion of the Hanson stuff was just a bit forced.
Yeah, I pretty much agree, but the important point to make is that any superintelligent ant hive hypotheses would have to be at least as plausible and relevant to the topic of the book as Hanson’s ems to make it in. Note Bostrom dismisses brain-computer interfaces as a superintelligence pathway fairly quickly.
I think that we are both right.
Hypothetically, if there were some famous university professor who had written at length about the possibility of, I dunno, simulated superintelligent ant hives, then I think that Bostrom might have felt compelled to include a discussion of the “superintelligent ant hive hypothesis” in his book. He’s striving for completeness, at least in terms of his coverage of high-level aspects of the A.I. Risk landscape. It would also be a huge slight to the theory’s originator if he left out any reference to the “superintelligent ant hive hypothesis”. And finally, Bostrom probably doesn’t want to place himself in the position of arbiter of which ideas get to be taken seriously, when lots of people probably think of lots of parts of A.I. Risk as loony already.
So, I don’t think Bostrom was sitting in his office plotting how to make his book a weaponized credulity meme. But I also felt, from my own perspective, that the inclusion of the Hanson stuff was just a bit forced.
Yeah, I pretty much agree, but the important point to make is that any superintelligent ant hive hypotheses would have to be at least as plausible and relevant to the topic of the book as Hanson’s ems to make it in. Note Bostrom dismisses brain-computer interfaces as a superintelligence pathway fairly quickly.