If I work at Anthropic and say there’s a 0% chance AI could kill all humans is BBC going to publish that as well? After all I am an “Anthropic researcher”, and my views should hold the same weight as this one.
Or are only the most sensationalist ones worth amplifying?
I think the view is fair. We have never seen something like this before, we throw the most money we ever had against it in a time were we solved all the other problems:
Internet today allows immediadte communication across the planet (it was a lot slower 25 years ago), the supplychain is massive and fast (we can build a new phone/item in a very short period of time and ship it in massive numbers around the globe).
You don't mean this literally right? We still have hunger, diseases, slavery, poverty, crime, war, climate change, pollution, microplastics, etc. For me it feels like we are very far away from solving these problems.
Crispr gene editing is an amazing and terrifying technology. We have the capability to edit people in permenant ways which could be passed to all future generations with unknown side effects and consequences.
I believe now we only have a shaky agreement by researchers and countries to "promise" not to do this due to the unforeseen dangers to humanity.
Comments
If I work at Anthropic and say there’s a 0% chance AI could kill all humans is BBC going to publish that as well? After all I am an “Anthropic researcher”, and my views should hold the same weight as this one.
Or are only the most sensationalist ones worth amplifying?
I think the view is fair. We have never seen something like this before, we throw the most money we ever had against it in a time were we solved all the other problems:
Internet today allows immediadte communication across the planet (it was a lot slower 25 years ago), the supplychain is massive and fast (we can build a new phone/item in a very short period of time and ship it in massive numbers around the globe).
You don't mean this literally right? We still have hunger, diseases, slavery, poverty, crime, war, climate change, pollution, microplastics, etc. For me it feels like we are very far away from solving these problems.
I meant it only for things which speedup innovation / progress in a particular technology.
Like take physical AI / Robotics: 25 years ago you would need to fly to wereever your manufacturing hub was, today you just call.
He is in line with the median AI researcher in this 2022 survey: https://wiki.aiimpacts.org/doku.php?id=ai_timelines:predicti...
0% is the expected answer, because otherwise why wouldn't you be doing everything you could to stop this?
The chance that biomedical and viral research could also kill all humans is greater than 0%.
Should we stop doing that also?
Crispr gene editing is an amazing and terrifying technology. We have the capability to edit people in permenant ways which could be passed to all future generations with unknown side effects and consequences.
I believe now we only have a shaky agreement by researchers and countries to "promise" not to do this due to the unforeseen dangers to humanity.
How do you know he isn't? At least propose what you think he should do instead.