zlacker

>>jnnnth+(OP)
This won't make a dent in the logical armor of AI optimists:

[ ] If you are not intimately familiar with the development of AI, your warnings on safety can be disregarded due to your basic ignorance about the development of AI

[x] If you are intimately familiar with the development of AI, your warnings on safety can be disregarded due to potential conflicts of interest and koolaid drinking

Unbridled optimism lives another day!

>>llamai+lg
All I’d like to see from AI safety folks is an empirical argument demonstrating that we’re remotely close to AGI, and that AGI is dangerous.

Sorry, but sci-fi novels are not going to cut it here. If anything, the last year and a half have just supported the notion that we’re not close to AGI.

>>skepti+vy
The flipside: it's equally hard for people who assume AI is safe to establish empirical criteria for safety and behavior. Neither side of the argument has a strong empirical basis, because we know of no precedent for an event like the rise of non-biological intelligence.

If AGI happens, even in retrospect, there may not be a clear line between "here is non-AGI" and "here is AGI". As far as we know, there wasn't a dividing line like this during the evolution of human intelligence.