Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
by usrbinbash on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @06:26AM
(#36123211)
> I wouldn’t hang civilization on this proofpoint.
And I wouldn't risk, or slow down getting to, the potential benefits of developing AI further, which are tangible and measurable, because of vague threat scenarios with little to no evidence or methods of measurement that seem like good plots for a SciFi B-Movie.
Pascals wager, as an argument, relies in no small part on the assumption that to believe in a god-like entity doesn't come at a significant cost. Slowing down or abandoning the development of AI however, does.
Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
by ethanbond on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @06:45AM
(#36123314)
“I don’t know how to mitigate the risk without giving up something I like” is a completely different argument than “there isn’t risk.”
AI optimists tend to conflate the two for some reason.
Second, if you are truly “accepting the premise” of superintelligence, a superintelligence would know exactly this line of reasoning and just opt to at least mimic vulnerability to prompt injection.
I wouldn’t hang civilization on this proofpoint. Doesn’t seem meaningful at all.