[ExI] Wired article on AI risk

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Wed May 23 04:22:31 UTC 2012


I'm glad you only think this wired article is only "rather ok".  In my 
opinion, it was clueless immoral fear mongering, further contributing to 
what I believe is already, guaranteed to be the greatest threat to 
humanity.  And I've started a survey topic, in which I state the reasons 
for why I believe such there.  (see: 
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/13/2).  It'd be great to know what all of 
you think is the most significant threat to humanity.

The topic on the stupidity of concern over "Frienly  AI" has less 
consensus, so far, than any other topic on Canonizer.com.  But the 
consensus is still for the non fear mongering camp.  (see: 
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/16/3 )  It'd sure be great if this, and 
the above survey was a bit more comprehensive, and more of you would 
take a moment to participate.  It takes far less time than re-iterating 
all those naive arguments  everyone keeps repeating, add infinitem, for 
years on end, as is happening, yet again, here, now for how many years?

Did anyone notice that the only two "highly ranked' comments on that 
wired article are not fear mongering comments?

Anyone want to bet what the emerging expert consensus says the most 
significant threat to humanity will turn out to be, in this survey 
topic, on for the most significant threats to humanity, after another 
year, after 10 years...?

It'd sure be great to know, consistently, concisely, and quantitatively, 
what all of you think, so we can significantly amplify the wisdom of 
this crowd on this topic, instead eternally providing all these naive 
clueless mistaken arguments, over and over again,  year after year, 
after year.  Am I the only one that gets tired of all this?

Has anyone noticed, how we never have these kinds of eternally 
repetitive and very painful arguments, like we once did here or in any 
other transhumanist forum, on the topic of qualia?  And notice that the 
qualophobes who once dominated these silly naieve discussion, no longer 
drown out the expert consensus? Why do you think that is?    I know some 
of you dislike Canonizer.com, because of things like that, but do you 
think such hate is justified, or is the wisdom of this crowd finally 
being significantly amplified, above the clueless and mistaken 
arguments, now on at least this topic?  (see the significant consensus 
camp: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 which continues to extend its 
lead, compared to all other theories.).

Brent Allsop

On 5/21/2012 3:31 AM, Aleksei Riikonen wrote:
> This recent Wired article on AI risk was rather ok:
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/17/the-dangers-of-an-ai-smarter-than-us

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list