People like yudkowsky might have polarizing opinions and may not be the easiest to listen to, especially if you disagree with them. Is this your best rebuttal, though?

▲

bigyabai 5 days ago | parent [-]

FWIW, I agree with the parent comment's rebuttal. Simply saying "AI could be bad" is nothing Asimov or Roddenbury didn't figure out themselves.

For Elizer to really deign novelty here, he'd have predicted the reason why this happens at all: training data. Instead he played the Chomsky card and insisted on deeper patterns that don't exist (as well as solutions that don't work). Namedropping Elizer's research as a refutation is weak bordering on disingenuous.

	▲	MostlyStable 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think there is an important difference between "AI can be bad" and "AI will be bad by default", and I didn't think anyone was making it before. One might disagree but I didn't think one can argue it wasn't a novel contribution. Also, if your think they had solutions, ones that work or otherwise, then you haven't been paying attention. Half of their point is that we don't have solutions. And we shouldn't be building AI until we do. Again, I think that reasonable people can disagree with that crowd. But I can't help noticing a pattern where almost everyone who disagrees is almost always misrepresenting their work and what they say.
	▲	DennisP 5 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Except training data is not the reason. Or at least, not the only reason.
	▲	digbybk 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What were the deeper patterns that don't exist?