Mac Budkowski แต
@macbudkowski
I read this pmarca essay and apart from saying "people been scared of tech for ages", "it's hard to measure the problem" and the quote below he doesn't really address AI doomers arguments. I like his essays but got deeply disappointed with this one. https://pmarca.substack.com/p/why-ai-will-save-the-world
6 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
๐ _๐ฃ๐ _๐
@m-j-r
imho the main X-risk was sufficiently addressed, but the one thing that stuck out to me was the glossing over of "productivity != local compensation". don't think the essay confronted the imperative to maintain a domestic consumer base of physical goods/services over the global nonscarcity of productive software.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mac Budkowski แต
@macbudkowski
Which argument do you think addressed the X-Risk properly? Maybe I missed something
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
๐ _๐ฃ๐ _๐
@m-j-r
all of AI Risk #1 & reference to criminal behavior at the end was sufficient. just because one force multiplier exists does not mean that the underlying risk is unlikely to occur. bio/misinfo/robo all rely on human commission of that "attack", all preexistant w/o multiplier. and PGP = munition is invalidated already.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
๐ _๐ฃ๐ _๐
@m-j-r
I think #2 was somewhat adequate, again the commission already existed wrt Photoshop & spam email, we already designed cryptographic defense against that (which social media actively omits b/c userbase = ad revenue) #3 was a miss for me, no real mention of coop solutions & no clear description of blue-collar gains.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mac Budkowski แต
@macbudkowski
I think these are decent argument but for me the central question is: "How do you control something that's 100X smarter than you?". I haven't found an answer to that.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction