It starts of interesting and then goes into lots of nonsense and non-sequitars when it start its takedown. (note: I'm not an AI alarmist, just reading the talk)
Arugment from Wooly Definition: An irrelevant argument - we don't need more intelligence. All we need is human intellegence + duplication and communication. An AI can clone itself immediately with its existing knowledge. A human can't. And AI can transmit thoughts perfectly "I know kung-fu style" a human can't
Argument From Stephen Hawking's Cat: This is also irrelevant. The arugment is supposed to be against Superintelligence but this argument is against controlling it, not against it happening.
Argument From Einstein's Cat: more of the same
Argument From Emus: more of the same - we can't control it
Argument From Slavic Pessimism: also not an argument against superintelligence.
Argument From Complex Motivations: Not an argument against superintelligence. Only an argument that some intelligences have mental issues
Argument From Actual AI: this didn't age well
Argument From My Roommate: not an argument against superintelligence. Only that some intelligences aren't motivated.
Argument From Brain Surgery: Not even sure that this is saying? It seems to be saying you need to learn stuff? Yea, people learn, AI can learn.
Argument From Childhood: Not an argument against AI. (1) unlike humans, AI can duplicate with full knowledge. (2) AI can learn faster than humans. Already proven.
Argument From Gilligan's Island: It takes a village is not an argument - AI can also specialize if it needs to.
Grandiosity, Megalomania, Comic Book Ethics: These argument that the people who believe in it often feel they should be charge. I agree that's true and bad. This is not an argument against superintelligence.
Transhuman Voodoo: This is an appeal to "these ideas sound too incredible therefore you should not believe them". Not sure how that's an argument
Religion: Agree, people who beleive and seem and maybe are religious. That's not an argument against superintelligence.
Simulation: Non-sequitar. This is "some of these people believe other crazy stuff QED no superintelligence". That's not an argument against superintelligence.
Data Hunger: This is actually an argument supporting the superintelligence believers. They believe sucking up all the data is bad. Not sure what argument is being made here relativel to superintelligence.
It starts of interesting and then goes into lots of nonsense and non-sequitars when it start its takedown. (note: I'm not an AI alarmist, just reading the talk)
Arugment from Wooly Definition: An irrelevant argument - we don't need more intelligence. All we need is human intellegence + duplication and communication. An AI can clone itself immediately with its existing knowledge. A human can't. And AI can transmit thoughts perfectly "I know kung-fu style" a human can't
Argument From Stephen Hawking's Cat: This is also irrelevant. The arugment is supposed to be against Superintelligence but this argument is against controlling it, not against it happening.
Argument From Einstein's Cat: more of the same
Argument From Emus: more of the same - we can't control it
Argument From Slavic Pessimism: also not an argument against superintelligence.
Argument From Complex Motivations: Not an argument against superintelligence. Only an argument that some intelligences have mental issues
Argument From Actual AI: this didn't age well
Argument From My Roommate: not an argument against superintelligence. Only that some intelligences aren't motivated.
Argument From Brain Surgery: Not even sure that this is saying? It seems to be saying you need to learn stuff? Yea, people learn, AI can learn.
Argument From Childhood: Not an argument against AI. (1) unlike humans, AI can duplicate with full knowledge. (2) AI can learn faster than humans. Already proven.
Argument From Gilligan's Island: It takes a village is not an argument - AI can also specialize if it needs to.
Grandiosity, Megalomania, Comic Book Ethics: These argument that the people who believe in it often feel they should be charge. I agree that's true and bad. This is not an argument against superintelligence.
Transhuman Voodoo: This is an appeal to "these ideas sound too incredible therefore you should not believe them". Not sure how that's an argument
Religion: Agree, people who beleive and seem and maybe are religious. That's not an argument against superintelligence.
Simulation: Non-sequitar. This is "some of these people believe other crazy stuff QED no superintelligence". That's not an argument against superintelligence.
Data Hunger: This is actually an argument supporting the superintelligence believers. They believe sucking up all the data is bad. Not sure what argument is being made here relativel to superintelligence.
... and I stopped ... What a waste of time