[chaosjevil]

>A lot of the AI doomerism comes from folks who do not understand the real complexities in making systems which really can function in a fully autonomous way in an environment which is hostile and dynamic.

That's a rather interesting mix of appeal to ignorance and argumentum ad hominem. Two genetic fallacies, together; neither addressing what is said, but instead who says it.

>Evolutionary goals are not easy even with autonomous systems as goal definition is largely defined by societal needs, the environments we stay in and the resources we work with.

Great way to say "I didn't read the article".

The author is not talking about evolutionary _goals_.

[avgcorrection]

Oh my goodness they’re not even fallacies. A fallacy is saying that something is wrong because of fallacious reasons. But the OP is indirectly making the much weaker claim that “I’m not buying it and that’s because X and Y.”

Speaking of fallacies, “AI doomers” (I’m just running with it) often deploy the rhetoric (not really a fallacy) that AI is about to doom us all because everything is supposedly so simple (like intelligence) and therefore it’s conceptually simple for a sufficiently advanced (but not that advanced) AI to keep improving itself. Now how do you respond to someone that just says that things are not complex when in reality things are indeed complex? Basically you have to unpack everything because the other person is just taking things at face value and is being naive. It’s like an “appeal to my ignorance”.

[chaosjevil]

>A fallacy is saying that something is wrong because of fallacious reasons.

A fallacy is a basic flaw of logic reasoning supporting or ditching a claim, view, statement or position. The post above does it, implicitly, as yourself acknowledged - "I'm not buying it" is still a view - it's ditching a claim because of things unrelated to said claim, like "who said it".

>often deploy the rhetoric (not really a fallacy) that AI is about to doom us all because everything is supposedly so simple (like intelligence) and therefore it’s conceptually simple for a sufficiently advanced (but not that advanced) AI to keep improving itself.

It's both the rhetoric (on a discursive level) and a fallacy (on the logic level): oversimplification. (Although "appeal to my ignorance" sounds funnier.)

>Now how do you respond to someone that just says that things are not complex when in reality things are indeed complex?

Provided that you're talking with a somewhat reasonable person, you say something like "Shit is far more complex than you're pretending that it is.", then highlight a few instances of on-topic complexity that affect the outcome.

Now, if you're talking with braindead trash, things are different. Those things aren't convinced by reason, so you use emotive appeal, even if it's itself a fallacy (you claim something because it makes someone feels good/bad, not due to its truth value). Something like "oh poor thing, complexity hurts your two neurons and your precious, OOOHH SO PRECIOUS! feelings? Too bad! Things won't become MaGiCaLlY simpler if you screech hard enough. Reality does not revolve around your belly."

[john-radio]

> The author is not talking about evolutionary _goals_.

Well... He is, actually, just not biological-evolutionary goals. (Like "natural selection," the term "evolution" can apply to anything that has appeared or might appear).

I do think you're right that the article frames the topic pretty well and explores it well, including the concerns that the person you're responding to raised.

[jrflowers]

> Two genetic fallacies

I, for one, reject the work of Cohen and Nagel because I think they’re both bad philosophers and therefore cannot be swayed by such rhetorical machinations!

[lannisterstark]

>Great way to say "I didn't read the article".

or you, the parent comment.

[chaosjevil]

I read it. (Although I wish that I didn't. Reddit exodus is taking its toll on other sites, it seems.)