The author should read more recent commentary on this topic. There are absolutely specific scenarios and timelines that outline why people think AI could remove humanity from existence. Whether or not you buy that those scenarios are plausible is a great discussion point, but ranting that nobody has any idea of what they might be is simply incorrect.
And some Zak Stein covers some interesting points in these, not least the increasing risk of kids becoming more emotionally attached to their friendly always on AI than their parents:
Can't accuse the title of being inaccurate. Not worth the read, it's not very long and spends half the time not making a point and then when it gets there, there isn't really much of one.
This should have been an HN comment or a post but it would be downvoted/flagged so I guess it has to be a blog post instead. It’s not bad and yes the author is right to call out the obvious plants.
The author should read more recent commentary on this topic. There are absolutely specific scenarios and timelines that outline why people think AI could remove humanity from existence. Whether or not you buy that those scenarios are plausible is a great discussion point, but ranting that nobody has any idea of what they might be is simply incorrect.
Genuinely curious, what would you recommend someone read on this? I have not been able to find anything that seems credible, but I am open learning.
Not an expert on this by any means, but this might be one via MIT's Max Tegmark Life 3.0 book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLcrvMfHUJM
And some Zak Stein covers some interesting points in these, not least the increasing risk of kids becoming more emotionally attached to their friendly always on AI than their parents:
https://shows.acast.com/wild-with-sarah-wilson/episodes/zak-...
https://jimrutt.substack.com/p/ep62-zak-stein-on-education-t...
[dead]
naive take. ai is being used in military applications increasingly. for me the 1983 nuclear false alarm incident was close enough.
Agreed. Shout it from the rooftops.
Can't accuse the title of being inaccurate. Not worth the read, it's not very long and spends half the time not making a point and then when it gets there, there isn't really much of one.
This should have been an HN comment or a post but it would be downvoted/flagged so I guess it has to be a blog post instead. It’s not bad and yes the author is right to call out the obvious plants.
[dead]