[nuguy]

the answers to your questions are

1: I never said recent advancements are directly leading to AGI. Not in ML.

2: I don’t hold any contradictory ideas in my head

Your comment is aggressive and unpleasant which is an offense that should get you flagged. I constantly get flagged for making comments like yours because I happen to have an unpopular opinion. I can’t believe I put up with all this for YOUR benefit. Do you think I derive pleasure from trying to make people like you see things clearly?

As I have said so many fucking times, a layman is just as qualified as a ML expert to talk about the impact of AI on the world. Just because someone is an expert in a field that is tangentially related to AGI doesn’t mean a god damn thing. This is not a discussion about modern ML. But just to make it super easy for you to understand, let me put it this way: even if someone here were an expert in every detail of the theory and practical aspects of implementing an AGI, that person still doesn’t know any more than a layman about the consequences of AI. The point that you so annoyingly cling to is like a car mechanic thinking he was the ultimate authority on how cars would impact the world. You don’t have to be a car mechanic to understand and reason about the concept of transportation. Ultimately, the most qualified person to talk about that is an economist or someone. Not you. You don’t have a deeper understanding of the concept of AGI than literally anyone.

It is to the benefit of humanity that you observe the deep, fundamental changes that AGI will cause in the basic economics of human life. Dismissing it as “too far off” or “alarmist nonsense” is irresponsible.

[random314]

So, according to you, ML is only tangentially related to AGI. Therefore we should listen to you, not ML experts - because you are a layman.

Even if I accept your absurd logic quoted above - how do you explain your contradictory goal of stopping all ML research. All the top AI experts are conducting ML research, which according to you is only tangentially related to AGI.

Going further, no AI researcher has managed to build even something as smart as a rat.

I, therefore conclude that the human race is at a greater danger of being out competed by evolution and chance mutations of chimpanzees and dolphins. These are our real competitors and next position leaders in IQ. We should focus on banning and eliminating chimpanzees and dolphins instead of foolishly protecting them. Why waste time blocking ML research which is only tangentially related to AGI. Let's take the war to www.reddit.com/r/dolphins and www.reddit.com/r/chimpanzees .

No point wasting time on hacker news.

> I can’t believe I put up with all this for YOUR benefit.

Thanks for looking out for my benefit. I will reciprocate by fighting the chimpanzees for YOUR benefit.

[nuguy]

Everything in this comment is wrong. Forgive me for not addressing all of it.

The point about the layman is that the actual substance of my argument should be considered rather than my credentials. You think that your knowledge of ML (credentials) gives you the authority to win a debate without actually debating.

I have never called for a ban on the specific research that is currently ongoing in ML. I have called for a ban on all AI research — not because it’s easy or makes a lot of sense but because it seems to be the only solution. I am receptive to new solutions, the absence of which is quite conspicuous in your comments. You are stuck on credentials and nit-picking.

“So according to you, ML is tangential so therefore listen to you”

I literally spelled this out for you in my comment. Are you blind? The fact that ML is not a direct path to AGI is just an asside. Perhaps I should have focused exclusively on your main error so as to not confuse you. Like I said, the impact of AI on the world is an economics question in essence. You don’t need to know anything about how an AGI might work to reason about the economic, strategic, and existential changes that AI as a concept will bring about. It is absolutely true that no amount of knowledge about ML or even AGI will help in any way with that line of inquiry.

“We haven’t made robot rats yet”

This just a permutation of people saying AGI is far off. You don’t appear to be in the camp that thinks AGI is impossible. Therefore this comment is irrelevant because it will come at some point and my argument is primarily about what that will look like, not when it will happen.

It should, by now, be thoroughly clear to anyone who stumbles upon this thread in the future that I am correct. If you want to continue, you can contact me at brian.pat.mahoney - gmail.com

[ppod]

For what it's worth, I considered myself pretty undecided about this issue before, but the tone and content of your comments have moved me significantly against your argument.