it seems like people aren't even reading this RAND paper, just blindly appealing to it. it basically concludes that a fuck ton of damage can be done, but its unlikely every human will die as a result.
It's very possible to predict that certain technologies will be created. It's just very difficult to predict precisely when.
For example, humans will almost certainly be able to re-create the human brain in some kind of hardware+software computer. We just don't know when. It might be much sooner or much later than you'd expect.
Merely being skeptical of progress isn't a convincing answer to the AI x-risk argument.
it seems like people aren't even reading this RAND paper, just blindly appealing to it. it basically concludes that a fuck ton of damage can be done, but its unlikely every human will die as a result.
I feel exactly the same way about the kind of LLM-based AI we have today.
But the AI x-risk argument is about what happens when we have "real" AI that can actually think like humans but a million times faster.
There are no real experts on this and yet it does seem worth worrying about in advance.
“There are no real experts on this” lol yes, Jacob, because there are no “real” soothsayer experts.
It's very possible to predict that certain technologies will be created. It's just very difficult to predict precisely when.
For example, humans will almost certainly be able to re-create the human brain in some kind of hardware+software computer. We just don't know when. It might be much sooner or much later than you'd expect.
Merely being skeptical of progress isn't a convincing answer to the AI x-risk argument.