nuguy

I never made one in the first place. I still don’t understand why it wasn’t immediately obvious to everyone else that Facebook was toxic and a bad idea. I truly don’t understand how other people did or recognize that. It was blindingly obvious to me.

Everything in this comment is wrong. Forgive me for not addressing all of it.

The point about the layman is that the actual substance of my argument should be considered rather than my credentials. You think that your knowledge of ML (credentials) gives you the authority to win a debate without actually debating.

I have never called for a ban on the specific research that is currently ongoing in ML. I have called for a ban on all AI research — not because it’s easy or makes a lot of sense but because it seems to be the only solution. I am receptive to new solutions, the absence of which is quite conspicuous in your comments. You are stuck on credentials and nit-picking.

“So according to you, ML is tangential so therefore listen to you”

I literally spelled this out for you in my comment. Are you blind? The fact that ML is not a direct path to AGI is just an asside. Perhaps I should have focused exclusively on your main error so as to not confuse you. Like I said, the impact of AI on the world is an economics question in essence. You don’t need to know anything about how an AGI might work to reason about the economic, strategic, and existential changes that AI as a concept will bring about. It is absolutely true that no amount of knowledge about ML or even AGI will help in any way with that line of inquiry.

“We haven’t made robot rats yet”

This just a permutation of people saying AGI is far off. You don’t appear to be in the camp that thinks AGI is impossible. Therefore this comment is irrelevant because it will come at some point and my argument is primarily about what that will look like, not when it will happen.

It should, by now, be thoroughly clear to anyone who stumbles upon this thread in the future that I am correct. If you want to continue, you can contact me at brian.pat.mahoney - gmail.com

That’s a really good point.

the answers to your questions are

1: I never said recent advancements are directly leading to AGI. Not in ML.

2: I don’t hold any contradictory ideas in my head

Your comment is aggressive and unpleasant which is an offense that should get you flagged. I constantly get flagged for making comments like yours because I happen to have an unpopular opinion. I can’t believe I put up with all this for YOUR benefit. Do you think I derive pleasure from trying to make people like you see things clearly?

As I have said so many fucking times, a layman is just as qualified as a ML expert to talk about the impact of AI on the world. Just because someone is an expert in a field that is tangentially related to AGI doesn’t mean a god damn thing. This is not a discussion about modern ML. But just to make it super easy for you to understand, let me put it this way: even if someone here were an expert in every detail of the theory and practical aspects of implementing an AGI, that person still doesn’t know any more than a layman about the consequences of AI. The point that you so annoyingly cling to is like a car mechanic thinking he was the ultimate authority on how cars would impact the world. You don’t have to be a car mechanic to understand and reason about the concept of transportation. Ultimately, the most qualified person to talk about that is an economist or someone. Not you. You don’t have a deeper understanding of the concept of AGI than literally anyone.

It is to the benefit of humanity that you observe the deep, fundamental changes that AGI will cause in the basic economics of human life. Dismissing it as “too far off” or “alarmist nonsense” is irresponsible.

Where in the logic of my argument have I made a mistake?

So ai is not a problem in your eyes?

So sarcasm is what will save us all?

You are an outlier. Even Hassabis and Hinton believe that agi is inevitable. I’ve never met anyone who thought otherwise. The only disagreement is about the timescale and the result of its existence. If nothing I’ve said can convince you that ai is possible, then i would just ask you to consider that the human brain exists and that we will eventually figure out how it works.

I never said anything about your religious beliefs, only that your need for hard proof one way or the other is similar to the need displayed by people who want to believe in god and who dont want to believe in global warming. there are many such examples but the bottom line is that demanding me to show you a sentient computer right now is not reasonable. We have the ability to reason about things without developing formal, mathematic proof about it. And in this case, there is no possibility that anyone could ever prove that AI is possible or impossible. Nobody can prove what it will do. If accept nothing less than hard proof then you are opting out of survival in basically any situation whatsoever. Sometimes logical reasoning is all you have and this is a case of that.

Yeah and before the measurements were done, before enough time had elapsed for meaningful change to be measured, all there was was people like me screaming at people like you, trying to make you see. When ai comes you’ll have your proof but it will be too late.

Yes, the grandfather of deep learning. This is exactly my point. All the modern advancements in ai have nothing to do with agi.

And by the way I happen to know about both of the subjects of the article.

Fantastic

I don’t remember insulting anyone. And how is that not true?

I appreciate that you actually suggest a solution. Nobody knows when AGI will come but it could come tomorrow. It could come in 1000 years. No harm in being proactive.

Developing a good ai first is useless because as I have said, the creation of ai enters us into an unstable configuration where bad ai will crop up regardless. Keeping bad ai from existing is infinitely easier when ai does not exist as a technology as opposed to when it’s a turnkey thing.