This seems unnecessarily rude to me, and doesn’t engage with the post. For example, I don’t see the post anywhere characterising accidents as only coming from bugs in code, and it seems like this dismissal of the phrase ‘AI accidents’ would apply equally to ‘AI risk’.
For example, I don’t see the post anywhere characterising accidents as only coming from bugs in code, and it seems like this dismissal of the phrase ‘AI accidents’ would apply equally to ‘AI risk’.
But I didn’t say that the author is characterizing accidents as coming from bugs in code. I said that the language he is proposing has that effect. The author didn’t address this potential problem, so there was nothing for me to engage with.
it seems like this dismissal of the phrase ‘AI accidents’ would apply equally to ‘AI risk’.
It does in fact apply, since AI risk neglects important topics in AI ethics, but it doesn’t apply as strongly as it would for “AI accidents.”
Hi Kyle, I think that it’s worth us all putting effort into being friendly and polite on this forum, especially when we disagree with one another. I didn’t find your first comment informative or polite, and just commented to explain why I down-voted it.
Thanks Ben, for telling us that communities of do-gooders should be considerate. But I wasn’t inconsiderate. If you linked an article titled “why communities of do-gooders should be so insanely fragile that they can’t handle a small bit of criticism” then it would be relevant.
I didn’t find your first comment informative or polite, and just commented to explain why I down-voted it.
Yeah, and now I’m commenting to explain why I downvoted yours, and how you are failing to communicate a convincing point. If you found my first comment “rude” or impolite then you’ve lost your grip on ordinary conversation. Saying “meh” is not rude, yikes.
This seems unnecessarily rude to me, and doesn’t engage with the post. For example, I don’t see the post anywhere characterising accidents as only coming from bugs in code, and it seems like this dismissal of the phrase ‘AI accidents’ would apply equally to ‘AI risk’.
“Rude?” Oh please, grow some thick skin.
But I didn’t say that the author is characterizing accidents as coming from bugs in code. I said that the language he is proposing has that effect. The author didn’t address this potential problem, so there was nothing for me to engage with.
It does in fact apply, since AI risk neglects important topics in AI ethics, but it doesn’t apply as strongly as it would for “AI accidents.”
Hi Kyle, I think that it’s worth us all putting effort into being friendly and polite on this forum, especially when we disagree with one another. I didn’t find your first comment informative or polite, and just commented to explain why I down-voted it.
https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/blog/considering-considerateness-why-communities-of-do-gooders-should-be/
Thanks Ben, for telling us that communities of do-gooders should be considerate. But I wasn’t inconsiderate. If you linked an article titled “why communities of do-gooders should be so insanely fragile that they can’t handle a small bit of criticism” then it would be relevant.
Yeah, and now I’m commenting to explain why I downvoted yours, and how you are failing to communicate a convincing point. If you found my first comment “rude” or impolite then you’ve lost your grip on ordinary conversation. Saying “meh” is not rude, yikes.