Not really. Much more often, I've seen technologists go into insane detail about the complexities of things.
-
-
Replying to @CShentrup @wycats
This is the problem I was originally commenting on; also, by implication: nerd attempts to “save the world”.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tqbf
this is a good deep dive into the "save the world, simplistically" phenomenon http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9124145/effective-altruism-global-ai?0p19G=c …
4 replies 4 retweets 10 likes -
for completeness here's a response to the main concern of that vox article (AI risk) http://effective-altruism.com/ea/m4/a_response_to_matthews_on_ai_risk/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I can’t tell if that author does/doesn’t believe AI risk more important than poverty.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The naive/simplistic thing is to say, "You're crazy that AI could rival poverty in importance." That's naive.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
spending all available charitable donations on AI risk is problematic because of Pascal's Mugging.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Is EA leadership proposing spending all charitable donations on AI risk?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CShentrup @tqbf
"What was most concerning was the vehemence with which AI worriers asserted the cause's priority over other cause areas"pic.twitter.com/WQ6Ep1JeA5
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Perhaps the bigger fallacy there is "genuine altruism". Should we fill the universe with humans so they can live?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
but both of these fallacies are easy to miss in pure mindspace, which is a problem.
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.