yudkowsky

Spock than like what Yudkowsky uses it to mean.

That reflects the fantasies of Yudkowsky and his geek friends (that intelligence is the most important thing) than anything reasonable.

Kruel's blog in general has a lot of nice skeptical responses to Yudkowsky Thought.

Yes, Yudkowsky likes thought experiments dealing with the edge cases.

> a concept that has been given additional, undeserved credibility by the reactions of Yudkowsky and LW.

Wait, Yudkowsky is considered worth skipping Wittgenstein for?

I've seen Yudkowsky justify it in various ways, but it seems to me that he just likes to write and tried to make his personal project more relevant to his broader goals.

If it was utilitarian concerns that allowed Yudkowsky to convince the gatekeepers to let the AI loose, he would have had to convince them that the following inequality holds even when you don't know the probability that the AI is and will remain aligned with human values: [P(AI.friendly?

Sometimes far from it (Eliezer Yudkowsky is a prime example; his thought process is so predictable, that if our AI deity were like him, some cunning people would quickly find ways to foil its plans; that's a very non-dangerous AI).

I'm sure Yudkowsky would find my discussion of his followers' psychology ad hominem and extremely irrational, but that is not the case if you're trying to evaluate not a particular threat model, but to construct a meta-model of threat models and how you weigh one against another.

I have a very poor opinion of the concept of the Basilisk (and yes, as someone pointed out, that opinion is basically the same as the one I have about Pascal's wager) - a concept that has been given additional, undeserved credibility by the reactions of Yudkowsky and LW.

His "followers" (as you say) are in general just as cautious as Yudkowsky w.r.t.

You sound just like Eliezer Yudkowsky!" And on a more serious note, if you believe in singularity, you essentially believe the AI in the box is a god of sorts, rather than the annoying intelligent psychopath that it is.

Edit: By "he", I'm referring to Yudkowsky.

This repeatedly comes up, as if Eliezer Yudkowsky convincing someone to say "Ok you can go free" is somehow indicative of how difficult or easy it would be for a real AI to get let out.

It is very likely that the AI will be extremely intelligent, yet somewhat autistic, like Yudkowsky's crowd, and just as powerless and socially awkward as they are.

But I do know that I wouldn't bet the human race on anyone's ability to win this game against Yudkowsky, let alone a superintelligent AI.

I love Eliezer Yudkowsky‘s writings on quantum physics.