I think there's a bit of a flaw in this post, in overestimating how much the "singularity" idea needs to be taken seriously, from being used a smokescreen.
The "ethics" faction is consistent. They believe that idea is a distraction from racism, sexism, etc. The more it's talked about by "right-wingers", the "ethics" side just says it's blowing more smoke.
What might be called the "drill, baby, drill" faction is basically saying that AI is going to be very powerful, so the US needs to develop it before China does. That's consistent. There's no indication to me that they take any of the fantasies *seriously*, about self-willed rogue AI's destroying humanity. This is the flaw I see, trying to cram a rhetorical pivot into the kind of games intellectuals play. That is, if politician says "Big AI is going to be civilization-changing, (pivot) so we must get it before China", the game is "AHA! You just said it'll be "civilization-changing", so by your own words it could destroy civilization. Thus you must agree we should all be terrified of humanity being destroyed by big AI". Formally, the fallacy is there's a lot of ground between the political statement and the AI fear-mongering, and trying to elide this ground doesn't work in terms of standard language.
Once something is deemed possible, it is unstoppable. We have to focus our energy at finding ways to live post-singularity instead of stopping since it will get here eventually (for our descendents if not for us).
How we do that, besides advertising the WALL-E model, is unclear to me.
I think there's a bit of a flaw in this post, in overestimating how much the "singularity" idea needs to be taken seriously, from being used a smokescreen.
The "ethics" faction is consistent. They believe that idea is a distraction from racism, sexism, etc. The more it's talked about by "right-wingers", the "ethics" side just says it's blowing more smoke.
What might be called the "drill, baby, drill" faction is basically saying that AI is going to be very powerful, so the US needs to develop it before China does. That's consistent. There's no indication to me that they take any of the fantasies *seriously*, about self-willed rogue AI's destroying humanity. This is the flaw I see, trying to cram a rhetorical pivot into the kind of games intellectuals play. That is, if politician says "Big AI is going to be civilization-changing, (pivot) so we must get it before China", the game is "AHA! You just said it'll be "civilization-changing", so by your own words it could destroy civilization. Thus you must agree we should all be terrified of humanity being destroyed by big AI". Formally, the fallacy is there's a lot of ground between the political statement and the AI fear-mongering, and trying to elide this ground doesn't work in terms of standard language.
Once something is deemed possible, it is unstoppable. We have to focus our energy at finding ways to live post-singularity instead of stopping since it will get here eventually (for our descendents if not for us).
How we do that, besides advertising the WALL-E model, is unclear to me.
I've been wanting to talk to you about this. Especially with Trump likely to win, there might be an urgent opportunity now.
I've been having a hard time logging into Facebook for some reason--could I DM you on Twitter?
Always!
Yay!
https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Goodness_of_knowledge