It also ignores the fact that there’s no need for it to become “alive” or “conscious” to be a threat in the way he describes. It just needs to be an agent with an mis-specified, poorly specified, or maliciously specified goal. And there are already numerous examples of those. The only debate is around capability, and here he makes multiple references to “infinitely” capable. So the whole argument seems like wildly disingenuous strawman, consistent with his attempt to classify all those raising concerns as naive (or corrupt) cultists - not exactly the vibe from the likes of Geoff Hinton / Stuart Russell / Max Tegmark; all of whom generally act with far more integrity (it seems) than Marc Andreessen shows here.
Ironically I think the whole article is motivated by the thing he claims to condemn - namely: he’s a bootlegger, who has an interest in freedom of ai development.
Part 2 is much more interesting. Part 1 was very very weak.
Ironically I think the whole article is motivated by the thing he claims to condemn - namely: he’s a bootlegger, who has an interest in freedom of ai development.
Part 2 is much more interesting. Part 1 was very very weak.