gt33m

gt33m t1_j9xfxid wrote

Reply to comment by terath in [D] To the ML researchers and practitioners here, do you worry about AI safety/alignment of the type Eliezer Yudkowsky describes? by SchmidhuberDidIt

Not certain where banning AI came into the discussion. It’s just not going to happen and I don’t see anyone proposing it. However, it shouldn’t be the other extreme either where everyone is running a nuclear plant in their backyard.

To draw parallels from your example, AI needs a lot of regulation, industry standards and careful handling. The current technology is still immature but if the right structures are not put in place now, it will be too late to put the genie back in the bottle later.

3

gt33m t1_j9xapzz wrote

Reply to comment by terath in [D] To the ML researchers and practitioners here, do you worry about AI safety/alignment of the type Eliezer Yudkowsky describes? by SchmidhuberDidIt

Like I said this is similar to the guns argument. Banning guns does not stop people from Killing each other but easy access to guns amplifies the problem.

AI as a tool of automation is a force multiplier that is going to be indistinguishable from human action.

3

gt33m t1_j9ui6id wrote

Reply to comment by terath in [D] To the ML researchers and practitioners here, do you worry about AI safety/alignment of the type Eliezer Yudkowsky describes? by SchmidhuberDidIt

This is eerily similar to the “guns don’t kill people” argument.

It should be undeniable that AI provides a next-generation tool to lower the cost of disruption for nefarious actors. That disruption can come in various forms - disinformation, cyber crime, fraud etc.

3