Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wassux t1_j1ncrx3 wrote

So you'd rather have world war continue instead of stop by the invention of the nuclear weapon?

And ofcourse each technology should be evaluated on it's own. But I can't think of anything that has been purely negative if you take a heuristic view. Which is the correct way to view it I think.

And yes hypothetically unaligned agi could be bad, but I can't imagine a scenario where that will happen. And that's why I think all technological progress is good, since it is worked on by the brightest minds we have, and they simply haven't dropped the ball yet. And I don't see a reason to expect they will in the future.

2

WarImportant9685 t1_j1nfl62 wrote

Frankly, I don't know. Cause nuclear is a grey area tho. In one hand it cause peace on modern times. On the other hand there is always the threat of extinction by nuclear winter.

But let's leave nuclear for a second. I can give you an example of a technological progress where humanity dropped the ball. Usage of CFC refrigerant which damages ozone layer. While it's cool that humanity have banned CFC refrigerant as of now, it takes 20 years for the treaties that banned it (Montreal protocol) to be created from the discovery of the problem.

My point is, humanity is great at advancing tech, but maybe not so much at advancing tech safely. I think at least people should take seriously that aligned AGI is not a guaranteed matter. And instead of getting defensive, ideally more people would want to help alignment research to make sure unaligned AGI not be deployed.

1

Wassux t1_j1nzlyl wrote

But isn't the technological advancement there that we figured out that it has a bad effect on the ozone layer?

1

WarImportant9685 t1_j1o0t41 wrote

Yes, that's why I don't want to say AGI is bad either. But rather, we need to tread carefully about AGI and consider each possibility. Rather than wholly believe it will be good

1