AI discourse doesn’t get enough TsviBT-like vitamins, so their projected toxicity if overdosed is not relevant. A lot of interventions are good in moderation, so arguments about harm from saturation are often counterproductive if taken as a call to any sort of immediately relevant action rather than theoretical notes about hypothetical future conditions.
I disagree with this, and in particular the move by TsviBT of arguing that today’s AI has basically zero relevance to what AGI needs to have/claiming that LP25 programs aren’t actually creative, and more generally setting up a hard border between today’s AI and AGI is a huge amount of AI discourse, especially on claims that AI will soon hit a wall for xyz reasons.
AI discourse doesn’t get enough TsviBT-like vitamins, so their projected toxicity if overdosed is not relevant. A lot of interventions are good in moderation, so arguments about harm from saturation are often counterproductive if taken as a call to any sort of immediately relevant action rather than theoretical notes about hypothetical future conditions.
I disagree with this, and in particular the move by TsviBT of arguing that today’s AI has basically zero relevance to what AGI needs to have/claiming that LP25 programs aren’t actually creative, and more generally setting up a hard border between today’s AI and AGI is a huge amount of AI discourse, especially on claims that AI will soon hit a wall for xyz reasons.