▲ 6 ▼ Y’all are over-complicating these AI-risk arguments (dynomight.net) submitted 1 year ago by dynomight@lemmy.world to c/dynomight@lemmy.world 5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dynomight@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 year ago Ah, so the argument is more general than "reproduction" through running different physical copies, but also includes the AI self-improving? This again seems plausible to me, but still seems like something not everyone would agree with. It's possible, for example, that the "300 IQ AI" only appears at the end of some long process of recursive self-improvement, at which stage physical limits mean it can't get much better without new hardware requiring some kind of human intervention. I guess my goal is not to lay out the most likely scenario for AI-risk, but rather the scenario that requires the fewest assumptions, that's the hardest to dispute? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dynomight@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 year ago Ah, so the argument is more general than "reproduction" through running different physical copies, but also includes the AI self-improving? This again seems plausible to me, but still seems like something not everyone would agree with. It's possible, for example, that the "300 IQ AI" only appears at the end of some long process of recursive self-improvement, at which stage physical limits mean it can't get much better without new hardware requiring some kind of human intervention. I guess my goal is not to lay out the most likely scenario for AI-risk, but rather the scenario that requires the fewest assumptions, that's the hardest to dispute? permalink fedilink source parent