I’m curious as to what y’all think of the points made in this post against AI risk from 2 AI researchers at Princeton. If you have reason to think any points made are particularly good or bad, write it in the comments below!
I’m curious as to what y’all think of the points made in this post against AI risk from 2 AI researchers at Princeton. If you have reason to think any points made are particularly good or bad, write it in the comments below!
This was already referenced here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MW6tivBkwSe9amdCw/ai-existential-risk-probabilities-are-too-unreliable-to
I think it would be better to comment there instead of here.
That post was completely ignored here: 0 comments and 0 upvotes during the first 24 hours.
I don’t know if it’s the timing or the content.
On HN, which is where I saw it, it was ranked #1 briefly, as I recall. But then it got “flagged”, apparently.
Good point!
This post was worth looking at, although its central argument is deeply flawed.
I commented on the other linkpost: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MW6tivBkwSe9amdCw/ai-existential-risk-probabilities-are-too-unreliable-to?commentId=fBsrSQBgCLZd4zJHj
The post isn’t even Against AI Doom. It is against the idea that you can communicate a high confidence in AI doom to policy makers.