The group suggested outreach and communication to people and organizations about the low likelihood of the radical outcomes, sharing the rationale for the overall comfort of scientists in this realm, and for the need to educate people outside the AI research community about the promise of AI for enhancing the quality of human life in numerous ways, coupled with a re-focusing of attention on actionable, shorter-term challenges.
Pursuing this further, I emailed focus group chair Professor David McAllester to ask if there had been any progress in “sharing the rationale”. He replied:
The wording you mention in the report was supported by many people. However, I personally think the possibility of an AI chain reaction in the next few decades should not be dismissed. I am trying my very hardest to make it happen.
AAAI ex-president, Eric Horvitz seems ambivalent here:
Horvitz doubts that one of these virtual receptionists could ever lead to something that takes over the world. He says that’s like expecting a kite to evolve into a 747 on its own.
So does that mean he thinks the singularity is ridiculous?
Mr. HORVITZ: Well, no. I think there’s been a mix of views, and I have to say that I have mixed feelings myself.
Hanson and then you posted a link to AAAI Panel on Long-term AI Futures (also discussed here).
From “Interim Report” (Aug 2009):
Pursuing this further, I emailed focus group chair Professor David McAllester to ask if there had been any progress in “sharing the rationale”. He replied:
(I have his permission to share that)
AAAI ex-president, Eric Horvitz seems ambivalent here:
Impressed—how did you find this? I’m also impressed I managed to forget something I myself re-posted. Thanks!