| Also, the letter only presents threats. Part of the ethical consideration needs to be the opportunity cost a six month delay could cause. As an example, let's say that GPT-N will cure cancer. Over a six month period that's at least 5 million people dead if the date it arrives and cures cancers broadly was pushed by that long. What about negotiating foreign policy treaties to prevent war, or identifying a way to reverse climate changes, or any number of other positive effects? The fact the letter even positions 'should' such an advanced AI exist as a legitimate question I find pretty gross. Should we hold back the progress of intelligent life in the universe out of the ego of humanity? I get superintelligence is an unsettling idea. But inherent to that name is an indication that there's a seat at the debate table that's currently vacant which might have important and interesting things to say on the subject, and anyone suggesting aborting it is a valid course of action (particularly given the myriad of existential threats we already face from fellow humans) I can only regard as being quite far from super. |