Olle, the AI developers are analogous to farmers, not sheep. I'm having it stop regularly and start from the beginning, whether I watch it here or in the link: Consider instead case a. The analogy breaks down there since I cannot figure out who fears the sheep. The analogous thing for the future of agriculture would be to rely narrowly on what cows and sheep think about such issues, but for some reason I never hear anyone suggest that. It still works to support my point, because I believe it is plain obvious to everyone that in order to make sensible projections regarding the future of agriculture, it is a good idea to go beyond merely asking farmers what they believe. Yuval Peres 23 oktober
If "we" means the scientific community - researchers and grant giving scientific bodies - then Pinker's argument 1 fails to support claim C1.
buss mellan örebro stockholm dagstur Om Mälardalens högskolas webbplats
The bottom line here is that AI experts are deeply divided on this issue. Is there any way to download the video? Pinker's argument 2, 3 and 4 are worryingly weak. Surviving the nuclear threat and solving the climate crisis would of course be wonderful things, but their utility is severely hampered in case it just leads us into an AI apocalypse. Very good, I can accept that modified analogy. Olle, the AI developers are analogous to farmers, not sheep. He went on to ask why in the world anyone would be so stupid as to program self-preservation at all costs into the machineand this in fact annoyed me slightly, because it happened just 20 or so minutes after I had sketched the Omohundro-Bostrom theory for how self-preservation and various other instrumental goals are likely to emerge spontaneously i.