The book had an annoying habit of giving metaphors and parables instead of arguments. For example, instead of providing detailed arguments for why the AI would get weird and unpredictable goals, they largely relied on the analogy that evolution did. This is fine as an intuition pump, but it’s not a decisive argument unless one addresses the disanalogies between evolution and reinforcement learning. They mostly didn’t do that.
Didn’t they end up placing the arguments in the online appendices (e.g. a discussion of AI-related psychosis)? In this case they likely misplaced their actual arguments...
Didn’t they end up placing the arguments in the online appendices (e.g. a discussion of AI-related psychosis)? In this case they likely misplaced their actual arguments...
I say that in the previous paragraph.