You can’t meaningfully evaluate prospects for AI without understanding enormous quantities of specific technical details. Pundits on both sides have utterly inadequate knowledge, and just express their emotional reactions to imagined outcomes in fictional scenarios.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Even setting facts aside, “We don’t know for sure that an AI apocalypse is possible even in principle” is an astonishingly bad argument for ignoring the hypothetical danger. Finding myself way more sympathetic to Singularitarian doomsayers than previously.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes;
@AVastMachine wrote the book on this: https://amzn.to/2WX9qzk
End of conversation
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.
As a persistent critic of AI hype, I should be glad for backlash. A new wave of Important Thinkpieces from Famous Pundits say AI is impossible, we don’t need to worry about it, etc.
Most are riddled with glaring illogic, false analogies, motivated reasoning, & factual errors