“Well, yeah, OK, so it’s a dumb algorithm that just splices together bits of text it found on the internet, but that’s all we humans do too, so it’s time to panic” is a nice illustration of my theory here about why people have ignorant opinions about AI:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1096866752456060928 …
-
-
On a tangentially related note, David, on a scale of 1-10 how "rationalist" do you consider yourself? (I mean culturally speaking. I know where I'd place you, but I'm curious on your self assessment.)
-
I guess I would have to question the framing of the question. Also, “rationalist” isn’t well-defined. I use the term rather differently than the Bay Area rationalist community does.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Specifically which part of Scott's post are you criticizing? I note that he never used the word "panic" anywhere in the post; I think you are unfairly attributing to him the kinds of views as in the more clueless headlines, which he wasn't guilty of.
-
The final paragraph seems to be the central point. It’s not “panic!” but seems to be saying “these reasons not to panic are wrong.” 1/2pic.twitter.com/jyl5ZfgEAc
- 28 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I love Scott's writing, but he's afflicted with the MIRI/"Less Wrong" memeplex. which uses a pseudo-technical conceptualization of AI to talk about the dangers of AI.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Would you write up a quick rebuttal? I have a sense of where it’s going but would love to hear an opposing view to what Scott wrote
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I wonder if he'll end up walking away from the view he expresses here. I don't have a technical understanding of AI but still found this the most frustrating & least compelling post I can remember on Slate Star Codex.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.