‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Sex, AI, and the Apocalypse

234 points · 279 comments · Anon84

  1. arcticfox · · 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. ribs · · focus · HN ↗
      The argument was fairly specific: there is a groupthink involved, and so the enterprise is suspect.
      1. afthonos · · focus · HN ↗
        It’s an excuse not to think, not an argument.

        The doomer argument is straightforward: a powerful AI will have goals. If those goals don’t include the welfare of humanity, a sufficiently powerful AI will kill us either by accident, by indifference, or intentionally when we get in its way. Making an AI that includes the welfare of humanity in its goals is incredibly hard.

        That’s it. To refute the doomer argument, you can refute any part of that. I notice that none of the people bringing up fanfics, cults, and weirdness are doing that. No, they’re instead trying to convince people that doomers are uncool. Since only cool people can know things, QED.

        1. ribs · · focus · HN ↗
          It’s reasonable to cast doubt upon the fitness of ideas based on their sources, particularly when the ideas are hard to adjudicate. It reasonable to filter what one engages with partially based on the sources.

          It would be foolish to ignore sources.

          1. afthonos · · focus · HN ↗
            I agree on complicated ideas, and on facts (because obviously different sources will selectively report facts, even if they’re trying to be fair).

            The ideas here are not complicated. The argument is three sentences.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.