Groundbreaking technology, inaccurate sales pitch

It's a basic problem in technology, that if something is totally unlike anything which came before it, then it will be difficult to accurately describe it. People often opt for analogies, and model it after what they know. Unfortunately, these "metaphors" for the project can often take on a certain mythology which obfuscates the actual … Continue reading Groundbreaking technology, inaccurate sales pitch

Reasonable Reasons to NOT be THAT Worried about AI Doomsday

Edit: I wrote this post a while ago, when I wasn't as well-read on the theory of AI alignment, and my positions weren't all fully formulated. I would still agree with maybe 80% of what's written here. I hope you get value from it. But if you come to the opinion that I'm misunderstanding something, … Continue reading Reasonable Reasons to NOT be THAT Worried about AI Doomsday

No, self-driving cars don’t require we solve “trolley problem” moral dilemmas

Stop me if you've heard this: Now with self-driving cars, engineers will be faced with dilemmas. They will have to decide the answers to certain contentious questions in moral philosophy. For example, should a car go straight and hit the child, or divert and hit the man? How should the software be programmed to behave? … Continue reading No, self-driving cars don’t require we solve “trolley problem” moral dilemmas

Malevolent Artificial Intelligence (Sam Harris is Wrong, Part 4)

I don't think this post was very good as originally written. However, it is part 4 in a multi-part series, so in lieu of deleting it, I have re-written the arguments I made as part of a larger post, here. The arguments from this post made it into part 1 and part 4. There is … Continue reading Malevolent Artificial Intelligence (Sam Harris is Wrong, Part 4)