> What especially worries me about artificial intelligence is that I'm freaked out by my inability to marshal the appropriate emotional response. - Sam Harris (NPR, 2017) I've been thinking alot about why so many in the public don't care much about the loss of control risk posed by artificial...
> What especially worries me about artificial intelligence is that I'm freaked out by my inability to marshal the appropriate emotional response. - Sam Harris (NPR, 2017) I've been thinking alot about why so many in the public don't care much about the loss of control risk posed by artificial...
What is the appropriate emotional response? It sounds like you're saying the appropriate one is denial, which, fair enough, is what some may choose.
Really appreciate this response, I think you nailed it! A general superintelligence is unseeable so you have to use one of those analogies.
Whoops! I definitely posted this second one to Alignment Forum but I guess it got cross posted back to LW.
What especially worries me about artificial intelligence is that I'm freaked out by my inability to marshal the appropriate emotional response. - Sam Harris (NPR, 2017)
I've been thinking alot about why so many in the public don't care much about the loss of control risk posed by artificial superintelligence, and I believe a big reason is that our (or at least my) feeble mind falls short at grasping the concept. A concrete notion of human intelligence is a genious, like Einstein. What is the concrete notion of artificial superintelligence?
If you can make that feel real and present, I believe I, and others, can better respond to the risk.
When... (read 1215 more words →)
Well I appreciate your comment but I think something's missing as far as conveying the emotions of the situation. I can imagine a death, a car crash for example, or imagine death on an even bigger scale like a nuclear weapon. I can imagine a disaster movie before it resolves on a happy ending. But I think those conceptions don't convey much, because I acknowledge that superintelligence can be destructive and can even envision what the end state of destruction would look like. Just envisioning that end state without explaining superintelligence that caused us to get to that end state doesn't do much for me though.
Ah yes, Rational Animations did a great video of that story. That did make superintelligence more graspable, but you know I had watched it and forgotten about it. I think it showed how our human civilization is vulnerable to other intelligences (aliens), but didn't still made the superintelligence concept one that that easy to grok.
What especially worries me about artificial intelligence is that I'm freaked out by my inability to marshal the appropriate emotional response. - Sam Harris (NPR, 2017)
I've been thinking alot about why so many in the public don't care much about the loss of control risk posed by artificial superintelligence, and I believe a big reason is that our (or at least my) feeble mind falls short at grasping the concept. A concrete notion of human intelligence is a genious, like Einstein. What is the concrete notion of artificial superintelligence?
If you can make that feel real and present, I believe I, and others, can better respond to the risk.
When... (read 1189 more words →)
When we got drill down into the crux of disagreement you walk away because it's not a good use of time/energy. Of course you're welcome to do that, but unfortunate.
I think you should uplevel the discourse by changing the title of the post and maybe deleting it. You're just allowing vibes-based bullying, which is pretty toxic. Here's why:
She elevated Kat's name to the headline; used the entire post to insult her writing; drew on ageist tropes and perjoratives like "cringe" to make her case; explicitly chose to share the message not with the writing's intended audience but rather an in-group who shares a distaste for lower-brow content; did so in an effort to rile up pressure to change the behavior on the other site; which was an all the more potent strike considering the context that Kat is already a well-known... (read more)
Let me get this straight.
After she elevates Kat's name to the headline; uses the entire post to insult her writing; draws on ageist tropes and perjoratives like "cringe" to make her case; explicitly chooses to share the message not with the writing's intended audience but rather a specific in-group who shares a distaste for Reddit's lower-brow content; doing so in an effort to rile up pressure to change her behavior on the other site; an all the more potent strike considering the context that Kat is already a well-known figure who presumably cares about her standing among LW/EA communities... you don't believe this is bullying because Browsing dropped a passing caveat that... (read more)
I'm confident in saying that the information here is not sufficient to conclude she was making a personal attack.
A wild claim to make about a post that explictly centers around shaming Kat for her posting style predominantly because it's "cringe", by putting her name in the headline (what I meant by name-calling) and orienting the entire argument around her. If it wasn't meant to tarnish her reputation, why not instead make the post about just her issues with the disagreeable content?
... (read more)If she said that was her intent, I'd change my mind. Or if she said something that was unambiguously a personal attack I'd change my mind, but at the moment I see
Really interesting project, Mordechai! Have you seen some of Geoffrey Hinton's latest remarks? He's said some things along these lines actually. Feel free to message me and I can point you to it.