I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument meant that AI is not a threat. This essay is the least convincing one I’ve heard.
-
-
-
For any kind of threat, there will always be a certain type of person psychologically predisposed to be more alarmed by the threat. Different threats will alarm different subsets of people.
-
It’s not fruitful to discount the threat based on people’s psychology while completely ignoring the reasons they give for being afraid.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Weak. We are the ultimate predator. We can and do turn animals extinct, whether on purpose or by accident. We are so superior, animals cannot defend against this. What happens when we're no longer the ultimate predator? Are we the next tiger or rhino? Risk assessment, not fear.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your conversation with
@SamHarrisOrg in LA should be very interesting!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You found this...impressive? The vast majority has nothing to do with the genuinely unprecedented potential dangers of AI, instead saying essentially 'people fear ghosts too but they're no threat, so hey, keep that in mind when people worry abut AI'.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This article really only argues against one dystopian vision of AI, the one that experts are least worried about. Really poorly done.
-
In other words, if you read this piece and thought it was convincing, you need to read more about what the actual dangers of AI are.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@samharris take a look at this. I'm 3 paras in and already up to my neck in fallacies. Falsely frames as appeal to authority, moves goalposts to 'at the moment we're fine' and tries using domesticated dogs as if it's a good thing. For us yes,for dogs? (sniffing out bombs for us)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Repeat after me: "I cannot predict the future."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Debunked" is way too strong a claim for this piece, which seems to argue that because aliens, ghosts and domesticated animals didn't destroy us, then AI won't either.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Discuss this at length on the
@SamHarrisOrg podcast please !Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you make similar arguments to this weak article in Enlightenment Now, I'm going to be leery when I read it in February, Dr. Pinker. "Debunking" never took place (not even close), and irresponsible use of that word coming from an credible expert like you is shameful.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Elon would be disappointed in you
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Pretty weak article, full of strawmen.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think we're all in a simulation and Pinker is an A.I. God-NPC
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The problem with AI is that it will be used as a tool, specifically a tool to dictate moral authority. Very easy build whatever bias is needed into the AI.
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.