| 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 |