Thread

1. arcticfox · 1789684902 · focus · HN ↗

   This whole "we can't trust the people warning us because they're either weirdos or involved" deal is such a strange angle when you can just start from zero, look at what's known to be happening right now, and draw a very straight line to catastrophe.

   It's like being concerned Oppenheimer and company are exaggerating when looking at the first nuclear tests at the same time.

   1. jackmott42 · 1789685066 · focus · HN ↗

      There is a wide gulf between catastrophe and killing us all, and its not just that these people are weird, they seem to be complete clowns, tossing out % predictions about incalculable future states like spock in star trek. Total clown show.

      1. solenoid0937 · 1789685247 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes, I wonder who the clowns are:

         1. Researchers that have forgotten more about this technology than the average HNer will ever learn

         2. Random HNers that think that suddenly they understand the problem better than researchers that have spent their lives on it

         This is just anti intellectualism in a different coat, and it's not much different from people denying environmental scientists talking about climate change or biologists talking about vaccines.

         But everyone here thinks they are the smart protagonist and certainly they would never hold a position so silly!

         1. int_19h · 1789691228 · focus · HN ↗

            These people are more like creationists, in that they assume that their intended conclusion is true, and then argue backwards from that.

            1. hollerith · 1789708568 · focus · HN ↗

               That doesn't explain the many former AI researchers (including Yudkowsky) who quit the field because they came to believe it is a potent danger: they didn't choose to become AI researchers because they started with an assumption that AI research is too dangerous to be allowed to continue.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.