7 points elffjs 4 hours ago 4 comments

someothherguyy 3 hours ago | parent

> https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...

it seems like people aren't even reading this RAND paper, just blindly appealing to it. it basically concludes that a fuck ton of damage can be done, but its unlikely every human will die as a result.

jacobgold 2 hours ago | parent

I feel exactly the same way about the kind of LLM-based AI we have today.

But the AI x-risk argument is about what happens when we have "real" AI that can actually think like humans but a million times faster.

There are no real experts on this and yet it does seem worth worrying about in advance.

duhhhhh1212 2 hours ago | parent

“There are no real experts on this” lol yes, Jacob, because there are no “real” soothsayer experts.

jacobgold 1 hour ago | parent

It's very possible to predict that certain technologies will be created. It's just very difficult to predict precisely when.

For example, humans will almost certainly be able to re-create the human brain in some kind of hardware+software computer. We just don't know when. It might be much sooner or much later than you'd expect.

Merely being skeptical of progress isn't a convincing answer to the AI x-risk argument.