| Interesting but there are some red flags coming up here, like: > This seems just blind faith, though. This is logic? Eh, better to show your work. Otherwise this kind of wording seems like a hand wave. Why does it seem blind faith--by what logic is it blind, and by what logic is it faith? The blind-faithers in question are people you said were researchers after all, are probably OK being held to account. Let's hear their response to being told they are relying on blind faith, as compared to let's say lots of experience in the topic and basic knowledge of probability. But that's just one example. > A majority surveyed also acknowledge that utter catastrophe is quite possible. Uh, the "quite" there is leading to a bit of a weasel-word effect. Where was "quite possible" derived from, vs. just "possible"? There's a cumulative effect of being rushed to judgment here, so I hope there aren't a lot of important little details being rushed over too. The emotional floodgates can be hard to keep regulated in such a situation. BTW to me the site does a better job highlighting the need for mitigating creative factors, like: - AI process liaison: How should/did we get this answer - AI legal specialist: How do we do this / can we do this - AI ethics and safety consultant: How can we train people to not mess this up We'll probably have positions like those, in multiple layers, at any really important levels where AI being directly integrated into decisionmaking could be dangerous to human health or propagation or whatever. Add high levels of education, licensing, and certification as needed. Otherwise it's a lot like complaining about anything else that's broadly capable, but doesn't have proper safeguards developed yet. There's a comment here about the site being satire, but really--if so, it's extremely cryptic satire, to the degree that it's more like the kind of thing you'd write if you wanted to be able to claim 'satire' OR 'not satire' later on, as events develop...I really doubt it though. |