I see nothing the AI field can collectively do about this. But AI would still have a better reputation in the impossible world where businesses waited an extra 2 years to replace humans with AIs, or until the robots delivered better customer experiences and not just cheaper ones.
-
-
If you think that a hiccuping Doordash delivery is a Harbinger of the AGI Apocalypse (rather than totally unrelated), you're also liable to be impressed by "relevant" work involving sexy gradient descent tech that flails in the direction of something vaguely alignment-sounding.
-
In my experience, all imprecise thinking is the enemy of all precise thinkers advocating precise policies. Once you depart the narrow path, there is always somebody who looks sexier, cooler, easier, more rewarding, because they left the narrow path to optimize just for that.
-
That's fair. All I'll say, anecdotally, is that I've donated to ex-risk organizations in the past, and I wouldn't put it past myself to donate more on a particular day if I've recently had an experience that caused a negative mood affiliation with AI.
-
And I presume that MIRI's other donors aren't immune from all of the usual cognitive biases that would cause them to donate less or more
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I do not agree. It isn‘t that simple and most of people who have concerns know, that it is not the robot-with-red-eyes-scenario, what matters. They think more detailed and with knowledge about risks and they ask, if the humanity really need strong AI to make live better.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.