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.
Yeah, this seems like a standard dispute over words, which the sequence posts Disguised Queries and Disputing Definitions already solved.
I’ll also link my own comment on how what TsviBT is doing is making AI discourse worse, because it promotes the incorrect binary frame and dispromotes the correct continuous frame around AI progress.
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.