Why can't anyone agree on how dangerous AI will be?
vox.com
vox.com
Reaction II: When you say "A.I.", which of the following do you mean?
- Actual autonomous "SciFi" A.I., doing what it wants to do, because of it's own, not-human-derived motivations, to the detriment of humanity
- Supposed A.I. that is merely a techno-fig leaf for nasty sh*t that humans would be doing to each other anyway
- Hyped-to-the-stars A.I. that is sold as the great solution to a bunch of huge human problems...but that was 99% hype, so we're screwed when it doesn't really work
- Other
I would be pretty skeptical of generalizing these results to a sample of people who aren't EA or EA-adjacent. That's a very specific type of a community/person with a lot of priors and methods of thought that are both highly specific and relatively uncommon outside of EA circles.
[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/635693acf15a3e2a14a56...
[2] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/635693acf15a3e2a14a56...
The pessimistic argument seems to say we don't have agency. It follows from this attitude that we can only stave off a collapse.
It is one self-fulfilling prophecy against another. Presumably these attitudes are based on more fundamental philosophies.
There may be other philosophies with prophetic power than these two.