‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Sex, AI, and the Apocalypse

234 points · 279 comments · Anon84

  1. throwaway13337 · · focus · HN ↗
    The framing of how we think about AI has really been cultivated by a quite homogeneous group of people. These people, like all people that belong to a sub-culture, are almost certainly prone to groupthink.

    It's extremely important to see that group as such. That it is not thousands of individual perspectives but a chorus of connected/aligned people who have all read the same things and talked to the same people and are rewarded implicitly for thinking a similar way.

    Many of them read HN and are offended I put them this way. But it's inescapable that we as humans have this flaw when we're surrounded by a culture.

    There's another universe where we do not constantly compare AI to nukes. I bet that world has a lower P(doom).

    1. skybrian · · focus · HN ↗
      We all use the same Internet. I would find it strange for anyone who's seriously interested in AI to have never heard of Yudkowsky or Scott Alexander or the Rationalist movement. I'd expect anyone interested in the field to have at least tried reading some of their articles over the years.

      Like, if you never heard of them, were you living in a cave or something? It would be like never having heard of Y Combinator or Richard Stallman.

      On the face of it, this is no more suspicious than reading the same best-selling books. Being in touch with what's going on doesn't necessarily mean people agree.

      1. mellosouls · · focus · HN ↗
        I would find it strange for anyone who's seriously interested in AI to have never heard of...

        Those people you name are important only to the very recent micro-culture being discussed, not "AI".

        Of all the names somebody interested in the subject would actually associate with the development of AI over the last century, those would be footnotes only.

        I think that's part of the problem and why its seen as cultish, the obsession with the social over the scientific, and a lack of historical perspective.

        1. tuveson · · focus · HN ↗
          Not important to the technology, sure, but for someone curious about the bizarre public statements of AI companies (or EA-influenced crypto figures before them, like SBF), it does help to know who these people are and what they believe. Behind the new crop of bajillionaires that control some important aspects of our lives are some oddball philosophers (or cult/religious leaders, if you want to be less charitable). If you want the answer to "why are these rich and powerful people saying and doing these things" you need to look at who they're paying attention to and reading, even if you think their opinions are dumb or niche.

          If technology companies were much less politically and economically significant, probably no one would give a shit about any of this stuff beyond forums like this.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.