It looks like mostly DH3 to me, with a splash of DH1 in implying that anyone who suggests that our future isn’t guaranteed to be bright must be selling something.
There’s a bit of DH4 in implying that this is an uncommon position, which implies very weakly that it’s incorrect. I don’t think this is a very uncommon position though:
That’s a fair analysis of those two lines—though I didn’t say “anyone ”.
For evidence for “uncommon”, I would cite the GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY RESULTS. Presumably a survey of the ultra-paranoid. The figures they came up with were:
No.
Yes.
I don’t think it is likely that the world will end in accidental apocalypse in the next century.
Few do—AFAICS—and the main proponents of the idea are usually selling something.
What level on the disagreement hierarchy would you rate this comment of yours?
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
It looks like mostly DH3 to me, with a splash of DH1 in implying that anyone who suggests that our future isn’t guaranteed to be bright must be selling something.
There’s a bit of DH4 in implying that this is an uncommon position, which implies very weakly that it’s incorrect. I don’t think this is a very uncommon position though:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/martin_rees_asks_is_this_our_final_century.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_petranek_counts_down_to_armageddon.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
And Stephen Hawking on AI:
http://www.zdnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-humans-will-fall-behind-ai/116616
That’s a fair analysis of those two lines—though I didn’t say “anyone ”.
For evidence for “uncommon”, I would cite the GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY RESULTS. Presumably a survey of the ultra-paranoid. The figures they came up with were:
Number killed by molecular nanotech weapons: 5%.
Total killed by superintelligent AI: 5%.
Overall risk of extinction prior to 2100: 19%
Interesting data, thanks.