Good thing at least some people here are willing to think critically.
I know these are unpopular views around here, but for the record:
Risks be risks, but I believe it’s unlikely that humanity will actually be destroyed in a foreseeable perspective.
I do not think it’s likely that we’ll arrive at a superhuman AI during my lifetime, friendly or not.
I do not think that Eliezer’s techno-utopia is more desirable than simply humanity continuing to develop on its own at a natural pace.
I do not fear death of old age, nor do I desire immortality or uploads.
As muh as I respect Eliezer as a popularizer of science, when it comes to social wishes, he makes sweeping generalizations, too easily projects his personal desires onto the rest of humanity, and singles out whole broad categories as stupid or deluded just because they don’t share his beliefs. If I don’t trust his agenda enough to vote for him in a hypothetical election for President of United Earth, why should I trust his hypothetical AI?
I do not think that Eliezer’s techno-utopia is more desirable than simply humanity continuing to develop on its own at a natural pace.
What is the natural pace? Under what definition is there some level of technological development that is natural and some level that is not?
I do not fear death of old age, nor do I desire immortality or uploads.
Do you want to live tomorrow? Do you think you’ll want to live the day after tomorrow? If there were a pill that would add five years on average to your lifespan and those would be five good years would you take it?
Good thing at least some people here are willing to think critically.
Unfortunately, saying that people are thinking critically about the SIAI is not the same thing as you seem to be doing. The OP and others in this thread have listed explicit concerns and issues about why they don’t necessarily buy into the SIAI’s claims. Your post seems much closer to simply listing a long set of conclusions and personal attitudes. That’s not critical thinking.
Eliezer … singles out whole broad categories as stupid or deluded just because they don’t share his beliefs.
Are you sure he doesn’t single out broad categories as stupid or deluded just because they really are? Calling people stupid may be bad politics, but there is a fact of the matter.
Good thing at least some people here are willing to think critically.
I know these are unpopular views around here, but for the record:
Risks be risks, but I believe it’s unlikely that humanity will actually be destroyed in a foreseeable perspective.
I do not think it’s likely that we’ll arrive at a superhuman AI during my lifetime, friendly or not.
I do not think that Eliezer’s techno-utopia is more desirable than simply humanity continuing to develop on its own at a natural pace.
I do not fear death of old age, nor do I desire immortality or uploads.
As muh as I respect Eliezer as a popularizer of science, when it comes to social wishes, he makes sweeping generalizations, too easily projects his personal desires onto the rest of humanity, and singles out whole broad categories as stupid or deluded just because they don’t share his beliefs. If I don’t trust his agenda enough to vote for him in a hypothetical election for President of United Earth, why should I trust his hypothetical AI?
What is the natural pace? Under what definition is there some level of technological development that is natural and some level that is not?
Do you want to live tomorrow? Do you think you’ll want to live the day after tomorrow? If there were a pill that would add five years on average to your lifespan and those would be five good years would you take it?
Unfortunately, saying that people are thinking critically about the SIAI is not the same thing as you seem to be doing. The OP and others in this thread have listed explicit concerns and issues about why they don’t necessarily buy into the SIAI’s claims. Your post seems much closer to simply listing a long set of conclusions and personal attitudes. That’s not critical thinking.
Are you sure he doesn’t single out broad categories as stupid or deluded just because they really are? Calling people stupid may be bad politics, but there is a fact of the matter.
A belief can be true or false, but what makes a person stupid?