So, I’m new here, and apparently, I’ve misunderstood something. My comment didn’t seem all that controversial to me, but it’s been down-voted by everybody who gave it a vote. Can somebody pass me a clue as to why there is strong disagreement with my statement? Thanks.
NeroWolfe
Karma: 115
How complicated is providing context for that without a week of work on your side? The only plausible exculpatory context I can imagine is something akin to: “If somebody sent me a text like this, I would sever all contact with them, so I’m providing it as an example of what I consider to be unacceptable.” I fail to see how hard it is to explain why the claims are false now and then provide detailed receipts within the week.
I don’t know any of the parties involved here, but the Nonlinear side seems pretty fishy so far.
I don’t share your optimistic view that transnational agencies such as the IAEA will be all that effective. The history of the nuclear arms race is that those countries that could develop weapons did, leading to extremes such as the Tsar Bomba, a 50-megaton monster that was more of a dick-waving demonstration than a real weapon. The only thing that ended the unstable MAD doctrine was the internal collapse of the Soviet Union. So, while countries have agreed to allow limited inspection of their nuclear facilities and stockpiles, it’s nothing like the level of complete sharing that you envision in your description.
I think there is something to be said for treating AI technology similar to how we treat NBC weapons: tightly regulated and with robust security protocols, all backed up by legal sanctions, based on the degree of danger. However, it seems likely that the major commercial players will fight tooth and nail to avoid that situation, and you’ll have to figure out how to apply similar restrictions worldwide.
So, I think this is an excellent discussion to have, but I’m not convinced that the regulated source model you describe is workable.
I’m a new member here and curious about the site’s view on responding to really old threads. My first comment was on a post that turned out to be four years old. It was a post by Wei Dai and appeared at the top of the page today, so I assumed it was new. I found the content to be relevant, but I’d like to know if there is a shared notion of “don’t reply to posts that are more than X amount in the past.”
Long-time listener, first-time caller here! I think this is an interesting viewpoint, and I wonder how you decide if you’re making forward progress. With standard publications, media presentations, or whatever, you can identify that you’ve contributed Idea X to Field Y when you’re published, but it seems harder to know that for yourself when the main contribution is forum posts. I’m interested in your views on this.
I think it would be good to word this as “and intends to publish a detailed point-by-point response by September 15th,” or whatever the correct date turns out to be.