Comment by alwaysbeconsing
3 years ago
I don't understand what the "Argument From Slavic Pessimism" is arguing against. It seems to be ceding the point that AI could be dangerous and saying that we most like won't be able to prevent it. The conclsion therefore is...we shouldn't try? Seems like a tangent among the other points. It definitely doesn't argue against the possibility of danger.
> We know that minds have to play and learn to interact with the world, before they reach their full mental capacity.
Disagree somewhat with this one. We know that brains need to do this, but granting substrate neutrality all minds might not.
The argument from Slavic pessimism is addressing people like Yudkowsky (who think we need a secret cabal of mathletes in charge of reining in AI to surreptitiously save the world) as well as all the people who think you can bolt a human sense of ethical boundaries, as defined in code, onto linear algebra and then release it as a product.
It's a bit odd to describe this as addressing the likes of Yudkowsky when, so far as I can tell, Yudkowsky agrees with you and does not think we have any realistic prospect of figuring out how to make AI systems that are provably safe, at least not before the point at which (on Yudkowsky's model of the world) we are doomed because we're making AI systems that are better than we are at making things go the way they prefer.
If memory serves back in 2016 (when I prepared this talk) he hadn't freaked himself out to the extent that he has now and was still talking about putting himself at the head of an effort to save all of humanity.
1 reply →
Okay, thanks for the expansion!