Yes, avoiding extinction from AI is an urgent priority

soroushjp.com

2 points·erwald··5 comments

Open articleView on HN

The problem is it's not a binary problem.

Is AI keeping around a few thousand zoo animals or lab specimens a better outcome?

also it could be accidentally or intentional(human goals or AI) or just competition for resources.

The biggest problem is we already do all the things that we don't want AI to do.

War. check

Let humans die for our own financial material gain. check.

Destroy things necessary for human survival again for financial material gain. check.

making highly addictive substances and activities for others people and leaving the consequences to other to deal with.

I find the argument that they don't shut down because if they did less concious companies would take the lead...incredibly weak. What's stopping the bad actors now? Why not just stop subsidizing them and only have nationalized labs working on it?

Can you imagine a CEO of a company coming out and saying, "oh, and my product could wipe out humanity", as a way to benefit their company?

Yes, in fact I can. If doing so will gain them competitive advantage by motivating regulators to enshrine their business methods and interests as “the“ legal and state-protected way. Much like the Greater East India company protected their monopoly by being given exclusive rights to trade partly on the basis of protecting those very trade routes for the benefit of their state partners.

I should have used quotes that was taken from the article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com

Yes, avoiding extinction from AI *is* an urgent priority

Yes, avoiding extinction from AI is an urgent priority