| ▲ | alex-reyss 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The main problem of the hard takeoff theory is not the abstract nature of the scenario but rather the fact that it makes the same mistake as the unconstrained optimization paradigm, it takes intelligence to be an unconstrained optimization process. In fact, if we consider the strongest version of the safety argument for AI, namely one in which the danger is not coming from robots but rather from a disembodied AI controlling our global finances and/or infrastructure, the assumption still does not correspond to reality. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | zarzavat 3 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If anything the hard takeoff theory is too conservative. It turns out you don't need self-improvement to get to superintelligence. You just need a ridiculous amount of money. Where can you get a ridiculous amount of money? The market will give it to you because FOMO. AI is easier than people 10 years ago thought it would be. It's also easier to align than people feared it would be. It's the humans using the AI that are hard to control. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||