That’s right. It nevertheless is pretty accurate for my assessment of arguments I’ve seen as to why AI can’t exist or wouldn’t be dangerous if it did.
If you want something more serious: https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm is a reasonable-ish response. I just think none of their counterarguments matter to the fundamental case that I put forward here. They mostly consist of pattern-matching AI risk concern to other things and pointing out that those other things aren’t concerning.
“On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines”
I am confused because the paper with this name I assume you are referring to is an April Fools prank.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987
That’s right. It nevertheless is pretty accurate for my assessment of arguments I’ve seen as to why AI can’t exist or wouldn’t be dangerous if it did.
If you want something more serious: https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm is a reasonable-ish response. I just think none of their counterarguments matter to the fundamental case that I put forward here. They mostly consist of pattern-matching AI risk concern to other things and pointing out that those other things aren’t concerning.
This seems to be long list of several augments and I’m not in a position to address every single one.