Hah, well, you must have never encountered LessWrong before. It has been like that for well over a decade, in fact it's probably approaching its second decade...

One thing you've got to give them credit for is that they've been talking about AI -- about the present moment, really -- from the beginning. Nick Bostrom, who wrote "Superintelligence" about ten years ago, has always been in their orbit.

▲

fwlr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It started in 2006, although it didn’t have its own site until 2010-ish.

I’m not sure it will ever be given its dues for its prescience. The whole rationality project was started with the explicit aim of upgrading participants’ reasoning abilities so that when AI came along for real, there would be people capable of thinking it through without making all the usual mistakes humans make when trying to reason about things.

In the discussions I read today, everyone involved from commenters up to CEOs are making all and exactly those mistakes, meaning it is in my opinion perhaps the greatest called shot of all time.

▲

Chance-Device 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He’s right though, this post says nothing non-obvious. It boils down to “AIs that can do some difficult things might be able to do other difficult things. Also: Danger!”.

There isn’t enough here for it to be interesting.

▲

baq 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On the contrary this couple paragraphs is aimed strictly at 'normies' as in people who are riding the current exponential with little history of thinking about this moment. Most people's beliefs and knowledge needs updating and patching without hoping that 'it obviously follows from assumptions' because most people don't bother to think about the assumptions in the first place.

IOW:

> There isn’t enough here for it to be interesting.

True - for you and the dozens of folks like you, to paraphrase a meme.

	▲	Chance-Device 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t think it’s good at doing that either.

▲

cbogie 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

is the horsepower behind ai speculation less than, greater than or equal to human speculation? seems they’re recursively related, though human speculation has more torque since it occurs naturally or at least as spontaneously as it takes for an epiphany instance to occur.

and then transposed into an ai chat prompt to get the analytical momentum for some grand scheme that gets published to whatever extent ie a comment, blog post, or whatever textual content that then gets ingested as training data…llm rinse repeat. not sure where this is going. is anyone?

▲

aaron695 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]