Adding to the barrel of finance fallacies
“I should note also that many (most? almost all?) of the bad scenarios have intermediate points of great worry and catastrophe” Not on my model. By the time any humans start worrying about a takeover or dying, AIs already control all infrastructure That is from Twitter, and I hear or read that argument often. It […] The post Adding to the barrel of finance fallacies appeared first on Marginal…
The author criticizes a common belief about artificial intelligence (AI) safety, stating that it is a flawed argument. They explain that the person in question is a human who is concerned about AI takeover or personal death, rather than an all-knowing oracle. The author questions the strong stance taken on this issue and asks why the individual is so confident in their predictions.
They also point out the absurdity of the situation, as if the world were to end suddenly, those who have bought puts using their savings would not be able to cash them in and would still face the same level of consumption. The author includes a quote from Twitter and recounts the frequent use of this argument. They assert that it is a bad example of "AI safety point" that does not hold up.
The author also mentions objections from readers and refutes them. They urge AI safety advocates with extreme views to spread their points instead of dismissing them. They end by questioning the high number of direct errors in this topic from smart people and suggesting a possible reason behind it.
Written by urgent.news from Marginal Revolution's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
