I’m pretty happy with this article… though one of my concerns is that the section on how exactly AI could wipe out humanity was a bit short. It wants to cure cancer, it kills all humans, okay, but a reader might just think “well this is easy, tell it not to harm humans.” I’d have liked if the article had at least hinted at why the problem is more difficult.
Still, all in all, this could have been much worse.
It’s Slate which nowadays is indistinguishable from HuffPo. As of right now the top of the Most Read list is “Help! My Boyfriend Secretly Taped Me While He Was Away to See if I’d Leave the House.”
I assert it is worthwhile to see how the AI-Safety movement is perceived by the mainstream. I agree with your implicit assertion that the the article does not provide much new information to the local community.
I’m pretty happy with this article… though one of my concerns is that the section on how exactly AI could wipe out humanity was a bit short. It wants to cure cancer, it kills all humans, okay, but a reader might just think “well this is easy, tell it not to harm humans.” I’d have liked if the article had at least hinted at why the problem is more difficult.
Still, all in all, this could have been much worse.
Also a book excerpt. Books tend to be better.
It’s Slate which nowadays is indistinguishable from HuffPo. As of right now the top of the Most Read list is “Help! My Boyfriend Secretly Taped Me While He Was Away to See if I’d Leave the House.”
More evidence (note the subsection).
I assert it is worthwhile to see how the AI-Safety movement is perceived by the mainstream. I agree with your implicit assertion that the the article does not provide much new information to the local community.
That may be so, but a one-weird-trick article written solely for clicks is not a good example to look at.