>Please actually do a modicum of research into AI safety. Your comment is the equivalent of a patient with zero context, arguing against the position of established medical science.
What makes you think I didn't? You're talking like it's self-evident and adopt the condescending tone from the start, without giving any actual arguments why. (I'm not really interested in them as all these discussions are pointless and we had them back in ~2015)
>A "cult" implies belief in something unknowable/unprovable.
Yes, precisely. Also the gods and religious practices. Rationalists and subsequently AI safety branch invented a religion in a roundabout way.
>"The entire medical community was born in medical circles and it's a very specific cult"
Medicine is largely based on evidence and real-life observations, unlike AI safety which is based on belief in something that doesn't exist and some unprovable lore that is entirely rationalized without any grounding, and is expected to be self-evident (because it obviously is) and believed by the others. One is science, another is policy.
>Are you familiar with the history of the PRC?
Yes, I know it extremely well. I also know the history of the US, am familiar with the people who do AI research in the US from before they started doing this, and can see the actual reality.
> Rationalists and subsequently AI safety branch invented a religion in a roundabout way
If you are arguing in good faith you can very clearly reason about any given AI safety take. Case in point, you refused to engage with most of the questions because you know the conclusions they lead to.
> Medicine is largely based on evidence and real-life observations, unlike AI safety
"AI safety doesn't exist" is certainly a take.
> Yes, I know it extremely well. I also know the history of the US and see the actual reality.
Why do you think it's better that a country that turns its citizens into a pulp for criticizing the government, and censors most media to control its citizens' thoughts, reach SI before one that is democratically elected and in which you can generally criticize the government?
> Why do you think it's better that a country that turns its citizens into a pulp for criticizing the government, and censors most media to control its citizens' thoughts, reach SI before one that is democratically elected and in which you can generally criticize the government?
Which country are you referring to? As an outsider who is neither American or Chinese, day by day it seems like the US is inching towards the same path as the criticized one.
You cannot be serious if you think this. Please do some actual research on how China treats dissident citizens.
They ship their human rights lawyers off to concentration camps, force them to eat their own feces, then rape and/or murder them. 57k citizens disappeared since 2013, at least 5k more every year.
I don't get disappeared for criticizing the US government online. The US government doesn't censor most media I can consume. These nations are not even in the same galaxy when it comes to human rights. They are not comparable in the slightest.
It is shocking how many people on HN have such a poor understanding of the state of the world. Spend some time outside the tech world. Your liberal arts education has to have seriously failed you if you thought this was a reasonable comparison.
To be honest, my first thought was also that the line between how the US treats its citizens and how China does theirs is very fine. You may not be aware of how the USA is represented outside the USA.
Quite a lot of serious people think this way, in many parts of the world.
> Quite a lot of serious people think this way, in many parts of the world.
Why? Lack of education? Lack of interest in what life is like around the world? Overconsumption of trendy headlines?
This stuff is taught in most schools (to my understanding) and very easy to look up. It literally just takes a few minutes to learn about how horrific these human rights are in China in comparison to the US. Anyone thinking about "where should superintelligence go!?" should certainly be looking this up.
This is why I say I'm sick of people that haven't thought about the AI safety problem critically, posting their unqualified hot takes on it - OP insisted he's thought about this to the same level. Much like a patient that thinks they can be a doctor too, he clearly did not, because this train of thought and this research is practically prerequisite to the discussion.
That's why I said "inching towards", not that it already is.
See how people are being treated in ICE detention camps. See how protests are getting violent with law enforcement officers donning military gear. Your mass media is built for consumption and conformity, not reality. The fact that news channels can say whatever lies they want on commentary programs, washing their hands without any reprisal is telling. You don't need to censor the media if the media is already self-censoring and self-serving due to the fact that it is owned by oligarchs.
What outsiders see is history repeating itself.
And I'm definitely concerned that the US could revoke/not renew my visitor visa based on online posts like this one.
I've been to Beijing International Airport on a layover, and at least the Chinese are on your face about being surveilled. Giant cameras everywhere, to access wifi you had to scan your passport, the Great Firewall is a reality etc.
Meanwhile lots of my personal data is hosted in the US via Google and Apple and I have absolutely no doubt that if some American authority decided to trawl around my files they absolutely could if they follow the (American) due process.
I believe I clearly marked my position without necessarily addressing those questions one by one, because it leads to an endless chain similar to ones we used to have a decade or more ago. The problem is that you don't seem to even acknowledge that viewpoints other than yours could exist in principle. I don't know how to reason with people talking about abstract matters like game theory as some ultimate source of truth without even mentioning axioms/grounding, applicability, experimentation, and actual real life complexities.
No, the problem is that you can't address why a nation that censors its citizenry, puts/disappears dissidents into concentration camps for decades, and makes its own human rights lawyers literally eat their own shit, before raping and/or murdering them - is better suited to reach superintelligence before the US (given that these are the only two left in the race for the superintelligence - I'd prefer the EU.)
You haven't provided a consistent counterpoint to any rationalist/safety viewpoint. I could acknowledge one if you actually provided a counterpoint, but you just say "it's a cult and it's wrong" without addressing the underlying argument.
>> Why do you think it's better that a country that turns its citizens into a pulp for criticizing the government, and censors most media to control its citizens' thoughts, reach SI before one that is democratically elected and in which you can generally criticize the government?
What makes you think I didn't? You're talking like it's self-evident and adopt the condescending tone from the start, without giving any actual arguments why. (I'm not really interested in them as all these discussions are pointless and we had them back in ~2015)
>A "cult" implies belief in something unknowable/unprovable.
Yes, precisely. Also the gods and religious practices. Rationalists and subsequently AI safety branch invented a religion in a roundabout way.
>"The entire medical community was born in medical circles and it's a very specific cult"
Medicine is largely based on evidence and real-life observations, unlike AI safety which is based on belief in something that doesn't exist and some unprovable lore that is entirely rationalized without any grounding, and is expected to be self-evident (because it obviously is) and believed by the others. One is science, another is policy.
>Are you familiar with the history of the PRC?
Yes, I know it extremely well. I also know the history of the US, am familiar with the people who do AI research in the US from before they started doing this, and can see the actual reality.