Google Deepmind Researcher Co-Authors Paper Saying AI Will Eliminate Humanity | Hacker News Reader

Google Deepmind Researcher Co-Authors Paper Saying AI Will Eliminate Humanity

vice.com

16 points_aleph2c_9 comments

Let me guess, another dude who conveniently conflates computing power with intelligence, and also welcomes investor money to save the world.

EDIT: Yup, “Assumption 1.A sufficiently advanced agent will do at least human-level hypothesis generation”.

This is literally fairy tales for financial people who think they are technical. Read Stanislaw Lem instead; he had better understanding of all this half a century ago.

is that assumption not reasonable? It's the one I've been working with for a while.

You can’t have human-like thought processes without human-like upbringing. Humans need to “bootstrap” from society.

Do you know why happens to kids who grow up without other humans?

Ugh, how about teaching AI how to drive an automobile first?

They're going to need some mobility in order to eliminate humanity.

> "...the most intelligent inhabitants of that future world won't be men or monkeys, they'll be machines - the remote descendants of today's computers. Now the present day electronic brains are complete morons, but this will not be true in another generation. They will start to think and eventually they will completely out think their makers. Is this depressing? I don't see why it should be. We superseded the cro-magnon and neanderthal men and we presume we're an improvement. I think we should regard it as a privilege to be stepping stones to higher things." -Arthur C. Clark

https://youtu.be/YwELr8ir9qM?t=259

One fundamentally wrong assumption here is the part about superseding Neanderthals. We didn’t supersede thousands of other species. There is no reason to believe humans would get superseded, we’re just too useful. It’s more likely we’ll be employed instead.

Another questionable assumption is of course that future tense.

At the time he spoke, that was the general assumption.

In terms of Clarke's ability to predict the future? I think he proved his prescience enough to take his words seriously.

At the time Pascal’s Wager was the general assumption. Which doesn’t change the fact that it’s false - same as this one.

Sounds good to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com