[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

At that high of a probability of doom, one could argue that the most ethical thing to do is to assassinate everyone involved in AI research. Probability of doom x number of people affected is .05 x 8 billion == 400 million, versus a few thousand AI researchers.

Of course, no one really believes the probability of doom is that high.

[Zak]

Even with purely utilitarian ethics, that wouldn't be ethical because it wouldn't work.

I'm not an AI researcher, but I know what a neural network is, I've implemented a machine learning algorithm or two, and I can read a CS paper. Once the luddite cult murdering AI researchers was dead or imprisoned, I suspect the demand for mediocre self-taught AI researchers would be increased and I might be motivated to become one.

If you somehow managed to destroy all copies of the best recent research, there are still many people with enough general knowledge of the techniques used who aren't currently working in the field to get things back to the current level of technology in under a decade given a few billion dollars to spend on it. Several of them are probably reading HN.

[kridsdale3]

I think that what you wrote here makes you an AI Researcher.

If you were Iranian and said "I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I do know the math and I have built a small reactor." I would strongly suggest you be on the lookout for Mossad agents.

[Zak]

I suppose that might come down to perspective. A luddite cult that thinks AI needs to be stopped at a cost of killing anyone who might work on it would probably put me on their list, but not very high. Actual AI researchers would not likely consider me an AI researcher.

[JCharante]

Even if p = 1 people would have moral dilemmas with it because it hasn’t happened yet (think of Minority Report)

[FeepingCreature]

No, rather people behave in a virtue morality fashion even if they claim to be utilitarian.