Funding should go into pure science instead of AI technology because computers will become smarter than us and will take over the world and destroy us all... I dunno.. Im skeptical, not that it matters. Thing is: its a win-win prophecy. If nothing happens, then they can say, YAY SCIENCE! See? We save the World! If something bad happens, they can say, You shouldve listened. Either way, they get to be right. Plus, theres a chance they can get more funding. Science always needs funds - its an expensive endeavor. I know I sound arrogant, but its just how it is, isnt it? That doesnt mean there isnt also alturistic motives... but as soon as I saw funding I thought, ah, there it is. AI will destroy the human race if we dont stop it now? Theyve made a very safe bet, easy to sign on to. Apocalyptic doom and gloom worked great for Christianity; theyre just giving the Science version of Revelations. Oh well. Its mostly theoretical physicists anyway. Its hard to stay relevant and this keeps them in the public eye and encourages an interest in Science. Their Apocalypse is gonna trump anybody elses Apocalypse. Could AI take over? No, because people will come in to say No, just like these guys did. Theyre just gonna get the credit when... nothing happens, because they were the first big voice to say something. Positioning. futureoflife.org/who Still, I suppose its harmless enough. I just dont care for doom and gloom scenarios. Ive heard so many dark prophecies, by many places; throughout my life so far by equally smart people. Little if any of it came true. Maybe it *is* because somebody jumped in just in time to stop it; its just... I dunno, I prefer seeing Scientists doing science and not attempting to influence public policy for funding by scaring people. Some famous guy one wrote that were all political beings. I didnt like thinking so. But I guess I was wrong. Of course, they also may be right. Maybe their ability to predict the future accurately is better than me. Plus, theyre in a position where people trust everything they say automatically; a lot of my favorite science entertainers are on the list. When you see the combined brainpower there versus mine, Im like a pipsqueak voice in comparison going, Oh, come on, really? We may be advanced but were far from Terminator 2. Nobody has any reason to listen to me. I have nothing to back up my claims really. Id say History but then someone will counter with But its a new era. I cant do much when that happens. And maybe Im wrong. The thing is, now that theyve issued the warning and people will have to listen, well never know because theyll be right either way. A safe bet. Its like bets of WW 3. What we need is diplomacy and clear heads, not more loud voices, even if theyre voices of people that I like. In fact, thats what made it a little worse to me. Most people will disagree with, but somebody has to play devils advocate, especially when an easy-to-agree with concept is automatically accepted by many with zero voices stepping up and going, Really? with a raised eyebrow. Divert funds from AI development, which is primarily technology-based, and into pure scientific research. Thats what I see. Not that its wrong; I mean, thats just how the game works. I just dont like seeing my favorite names up there; and the more me-too I see, with no opposing point of view that I could find... the more skeptical I become. It doesnt matter if Im wrong; my voice isnt powerful and I may change my opinion next week; I just like to see more than a single perspective on things; I get a railroaded feeling when I see excessive agreement and excessive consistency. Im weird like that :P You can get mad at me; I understand.
Posted on: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:26:42 +0000