We do face credible existential threats, so why focus on fictive ones, like super-intelligence, LHC-created black holes, or alien invasions?https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/891019130626650113 …
-
Physicists, being responsible human beings, took LHC disaster scenarios very seriously, and investigated them thoroughly.
Likewise most AI researchers take AI risks seriously (e.g. algo bias, job disruption). But no serious expert worried about superintelligence
-
-
Yes I am 100% sure. Cult brochures aren't a source.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
I , for one, think that AI researchers are responsible and most of them are also human beings and not manifestations of
#AIThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
AI researchers also tend not to believe human-level AGI is possible or coherent. If they're wrong, why trust their predictions of AI safety?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Except kurzweil?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Most researcher Dodos take predator-science seriuosly. But no serious Dodo really worries, bcs such a being is just, like, eh.. implausible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's a strong and incorrect claim. Hassabis, Russel, and Schmidhuber are experts by any standard, and have publically expressed concern.
-
One of them is employed by Google for goodness sakes.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
An expert needs to write an article to explain what A.I currently is ie dl frmwrks are jst overly sophisticated calculators that can do diff
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.