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 …
-
-
Replying to @fchollet
Physicists, being responsible human beings, took LHC disaster scenarios very seriously, and investigated them thoroughly.
5 replies 4 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @seanmcarroll
Likewise most AI researchers take AI risks seriously (e.g. algo bias, job disruption). But no serious expert worried about superintelligence
7 replies 11 retweets 56 likes -
-
Replying to @ArtirKel @seanmcarroll
Yes I am 100% sure. Cult brochures aren't a source.
5 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
To anyone who's interested: the 'cult brochure' is an excellent blog by
@slatestarcodex and I strongly recommend it.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Trying to get people to admit existence of future threat from AI, can't even get them to admit the existence of Stuart Russell :(
2 replies 6 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @AndreTI and
Russell rightly identifies value alignment as a problem worth studying, but is hardly in the Musk camp of "evil AI killing everyone soon".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Russell warns about "species ending problems", and nobody says they're sure that it will be soon.
-
-
Replying to @slatestarcodex @sherjilozair and
Russell agrees with everyone else that, although likely far, it would be irresponsible to say impossible soon. Direct quote is (cont)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @sherjilozair and
"Some have argued that there is no conceivable risk to humanity for centuries to come, perhaps forgetting that the interval of time..."
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes - 6 more replies
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.