My initial impression is that if 75% of the world was working on stopping AI, that would presumably include government and policy who could very well tell the remaining 25% that they can’t work on AI.
As far the infohazards of thinking about developing AI; I think that’s beyond what we can do. Ada Lovelace thought about AI in the 1840′s (https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/ada-lovelace-worlds-first-computer-programmer-who-predicted-artificial), and the possibility of massive economic gains is enough to encourage even a small number of people to continue working on it (and if fewer people are thinking about it, the competition is even smaller, thus the rewards much greater).
I do agree that there are awful things going on in the world, and ideally AI will be able to solve or massively fix those problems (on a scale that humans just aren’t able to).
I’m surprised no one commented in response.
My initial impression is that if 75% of the world was working on stopping AI, that would presumably include government and policy who could very well tell the remaining 25% that they can’t work on AI.
As far the infohazards of thinking about developing AI; I think that’s beyond what we can do. Ada Lovelace thought about AI in the 1840′s (https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/ada-lovelace-worlds-first-computer-programmer-who-predicted-artificial), and the possibility of massive economic gains is enough to encourage even a small number of people to continue working on it (and if fewer people are thinking about it, the competition is even smaller, thus the rewards much greater).
I do agree that there are awful things going on in the world, and ideally AI will be able to solve or massively fix those problems (on a scale that humans just aren’t able to).