I like humility. I wish AI advocates had more of it too. I agree that forecasting risk beyond five years is hard. It is the burden of advocates to demonstrate that what they want to do has acceptable risks of harm over the 10 to 100 year period, not skeptics’ burden to prove non-safety or non-benefience.
Exactly, the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim.
I hope EA is able to get back to the basics of doing the most real-world good with limited resources rather than utilitarian nonsense of saving trillions of theoretical future humans.
It’s not utilitarian nonsense to think about large numbers of loved ones. There are trillions of fish in the oceans, and we have the chance to make their lives so much better!
Agreed! My comment was as aimed at the absurd conclusions one makes when weighing the tradeoffs we make today against trillions of unborn humans. That logic leads to extreme positions.
I like humility. I wish AI advocates had more of it too. I agree that forecasting risk beyond five years is hard. It is the burden of advocates to demonstrate that what they want to do has acceptable risks of harm over the 10 to 100 year period, not skeptics’ burden to prove non-safety or non-benefience.
Exactly, the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim.
I hope EA is able to get back to the basics of doing the most real-world good with limited resources rather than utilitarian nonsense of saving trillions of theoretical future humans.
It’s not utilitarian nonsense to think about large numbers of loved ones. There are trillions of fish in the oceans, and we have the chance to make their lives so much better!
https://reducing-suffering.org/how-many-wild-animals-are-there/#Fish
Agreed! My comment was as aimed at the absurd conclusions one makes when weighing the tradeoffs we make today against trillions of unborn humans. That logic leads to extreme positions.