examachine

This is like posting an article about genetic evolution on a creationist forum. They will pretend to "understand" what you are saying and then dig down deeper into their irrational dogma.

Bostrom is a crypto-creationist "philosopher" with farcical arguments in favor of abrahamic mythology and neo-luddism. People are giving too much credit to lunatics who promote AI eschatology. Please do not listen to schizophrenics like Bostrom. The whole "academic career" of Bostrom may be summarized as "non-solutions to non-problems". I have never seen a less useful thinker. He could not be more wrong! I sometimes think that philosophy departments should be shut down, if they are to breed this kind of ignorance.

It's quite ironic that Bostrom is talking about superintelligence, BTW. How will he imagine what intelligent entities think?

Wow, that's clearly foolish. Sorry. :) I mean I can't stop laughing so I won't be able to answer. Are you people retarded or something? Read my lips: AI DOES NOT MEAN FULLY AUTONOMOUS AGENT.

And AI Box experiment is more bullshit. I can PROGRAM an agent so that it never walks out of a box. It never wants to. Period. Imbeciles. You don't have to "imprison" any AI agent.

So, no, because it doesn't have to be fully autonomous.

Because life isn't a third grade science fiction movie, where the super scientists who program AI agents are at the same time so incompetent that their experiments break out of the lab and kill everyone. :) Not going to happen. Sorry!

I'm sorry to say that even a chatbot might refute this line of reasoning. Of course, economical impact is more important than such unfounded concerns. That might be the greatest danger of AI software. It might end up refuting a lot of pseudo-science about ethics.

Countries are starting wars over oil. High technology is a good thing, it might make us more wealthy, more capable, more peaceful. If employed wisely, of course. What we must concern ourselves with is how wise, how ethical we ourselves are in our own actions and plans.

I do. Nick Bostrom is a creationist idiot (simulation "argument" is creationism), with absolutely no expertise in AI, who thinks the doomsday argument is true. Funnily enough, he does claim to be an expert in several extremely difficult fields including AI and computational neuroscience despite lack of any serious technical publications, on his book cover. That's usually a red flag indicating a charlatan. Despite whatever you might think, a "social scientist" is ill-equipped to say anything about AI. That's enough for now. For a more detailed exposition, I am afraid you will have to wait a while longer. You will know it, when you see it, stay tuned!

It is entertaining indeed that a non computer scientist entrepreneur (Elon Musk) is emotionally influenced by the incredibly fallacious pseudo-scientific bullshit of Nick Bostrom, another non-computer scientist, and that people are talking about it.

So let's see, a clown writes a book, and an investor thinks it is a credible book while it is not true. What makes this hilarious is people's reactions to it. A ship of fools.

I cannot possibly disclose confidential research here, so you will have to be content with that.

At any rate, believing that human-level AI is an extremely dangerous technology is pseudo-scientific.

Racists. Why does anyone even care about such people? Just ignore them.

I think it would actually be helpful if researchers made more experiments with AGI agents showing what could go wrong and how to deal with such error conditions. I don't think that the "social sciences" approach to that works.