You complain that my estimating rates from historical trends is arbitrary, but you offer no other basis for estimating such rates. You only appeal to uncertainty. But there are several other assumptions required for this doomsday scenario. If all you have is logical possibility to argue for piling on several a priori unlikely assumptions, it gets hard to take that seriously.
My reasoning stems from believing that AI-space contains designs that can easily plan effective strategies to get the universe into virtually any configuration.
And they’re going to be low-complexity designs. Because engineering stuff in the universe isn’t a hard problem from a complexity theory perspective.
Why should the path from today to the first instantiation of such an algorithm be long?
So I think we can state properties of an unprecedented future that first-principles computer science can constrain, and historical trends can’t.
You complain that my estimating rates from historical trends is arbitrary, but you offer no other basis for estimating such rates. You only appeal to uncertainty. But there are several other assumptions required for this doomsday scenario. If all you have is logical possibility to argue for piling on several a priori unlikely assumptions, it gets hard to take that seriously.
My reasoning stems from believing that AI-space contains designs that can easily plan effective strategies to get the universe into virtually any configuration.
And they’re going to be low-complexity designs. Because engineering stuff in the universe isn’t a hard problem from a complexity theory perspective.
Why should the path from today to the first instantiation of such an algorithm be long?
So I think we can state properties of an unprecedented future that first-principles computer science can constrain, and historical trends can’t.