Damn right. I am significantly less afraid of AI showing predatory, dominatory or other tendencies like that (unlike humans, it doesn't have an evolutionary history promoting those things, so unless some idiot purposefully builds a omnicidal AI, the chance of machine rebellion is not big). I am more afraid of damn monkeys that might be giving it orders.
The funny thing, is that if you take just a step back (or maybe 3), you can see where the goals of the "two" movements (practical vs. theoretical) are "aligned", and how/where *both* can progress together, less at odds.
Not to say we'll ever get to a place where everyone sees things the same (thank God! (IMHO)). Like, I'm not sure what "slowing down" technological development looks like when we're talking bits. (It would have to be something pretty "scary", from both a practical perspective and a theoretical one… and *clearly* potentially hastening the very things feared!)
If the case being made to "slow down AI" is, say, something to do with limiting government and corporation data-collecting, I full-throatedly agree. If, on the other hand, it involves limiting compute somehow, or logging what everyone is doing all the time? I'm sorry, but that's not even the Greek word for the thing that can be a poison or a cure— that's straight poison. (At least in my oh so humble (and sometimes honest) opinion.)
Great essay. My favorite scene in the Matrix is when Smith is interrogating Morpheus. "I _hate_ this place.". He states very clearly that human beings are THE problem.
Damn right. I am significantly less afraid of AI showing predatory, dominatory or other tendencies like that (unlike humans, it doesn't have an evolutionary history promoting those things, so unless some idiot purposefully builds a omnicidal AI, the chance of machine rebellion is not big). I am more afraid of damn monkeys that might be giving it orders.
Did you delete the ending of the 4th paragraph?
"If you lack force, then" seems a bit weird. The rest of the article was very clear, not sure what to make of that sentence.
Something that happens actually quite a lot when I'm writing is that I stop mid-sentence to get onto the next paragraph. I often don't catch it.
Can you just, like, have someone proofread these things before posting? Even an AI would probably catch simple issues like this.
The funny thing, is that if you take just a step back (or maybe 3), you can see where the goals of the "two" movements (practical vs. theoretical) are "aligned", and how/where *both* can progress together, less at odds.
Not to say we'll ever get to a place where everyone sees things the same (thank God! (IMHO)). Like, I'm not sure what "slowing down" technological development looks like when we're talking bits. (It would have to be something pretty "scary", from both a practical perspective and a theoretical one… and *clearly* potentially hastening the very things feared!)
If the case being made to "slow down AI" is, say, something to do with limiting government and corporation data-collecting, I full-throatedly agree. If, on the other hand, it involves limiting compute somehow, or logging what everyone is doing all the time? I'm sorry, but that's not even the Greek word for the thing that can be a poison or a cure— that's straight poison. (At least in my oh so humble (and sometimes honest) opinion.)
Great essay. My favorite scene in the Matrix is when Smith is interrogating Morpheus. "I _hate_ this place.". He states very clearly that human beings are THE problem.
Acemoglu speaks of this