Superintelligence: Science or Fiction? | Elon Musk & Other Great Minds
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN mostly cites it for specific statements, such as Hassabis on AGI and safety buffers, rather than recommending it outright.
What it is
A panel from the Beneficial AI 2017 conference moderated by Max Tegmark, with Elon Musk, Stuart Russell, Kurzweil, Hassabis, Harris, Bostrom, Chalmers and others. They discuss likely outcomes of human-level AGI and what outcomes are desirable.
Recommended by 0 HN commenters across 0 different months, 2017 to 2022.
What Hacker News said
Cites rojobuffalo · 2017-05 · on “AlphaGo's next move”
DeepMind's mission is to build AGI. I think it's probably good if they have a buffered lead on all other efforts. That concern probably weighs on decisions about releasing code. The rationale for why a buffer would be good is described by Demis Hassabis here: [this video] ...the main points are: there may be safety considerations along the way that are costly. More "capitalistic" organizations may decide to shortcut those costs because of the winner-take-all scenario. DeepMind is at least nominally very committed to safety. Releasing AlphaGo's source code would probably reduce DeepMind's buffer, which in theory, would also reduce safety.
Cites nopinsight · 2017-07 · on “Thoughts on OpenAI, reinforcement learning, and killer robots”
Top people including DeepMind's CEO Demis Hassabis and Prof Stuart Russell, a AAAI and AAAS fellow who is a co-author of the AI textbook used at most of top universities, agree that AGI is definitely possible and going to happen. [1] Hassabis also stated in another session that there are probably at least half a dozen mountains to climb before reaching AGI and he would be surprised if it takes more than 20. He also said that it has been easier to develop major advances than he thought. [2] Considering that there has been about one major leap per year in neural networks architecture and systems for the past 3-4 years, and this includes training neural networks to do one-shot learning for phys
Cites Veedrac · 2021-03 · on “Multimodal Neurons in Artificial Neural Networks”
Demis Hassabis. [this video] , older [LINK] (NB ‘likely’ ≠ ‘>50%’, not sure what his percentage would be) I can give more but I did upstream link to a paper on this so it seems pretty pointless.
Cites passion__desire · 2022-12 · on “Show HN: Whole Git repo was made with ChatGPT”
"And what would excite me about actually the birth of superintelligent AI - one of the things, apart from solving obvious problems like curing disease and energy issues and all the rest, perhaps differs a little bit with what Stuart said. I’m not so worried about idiocracy or all of us just losing our way as apes and living unproductive lives in dialogue with these oracles. I think actually, I would want a truly value-aligned superintelligence to incrementally show us, not merely conserve what we want, but show us what we should want to keep improving our values so that we can navigate in the space of all possible experiences and converge on better and better ones." - Sam Harris Source : [VI
Critical beckman466 · 2021-03 · on “How We’ll Know an AI Is Conscious”
> This is silly and ridiculously judgmental No it really is not. Just watching this panel/Q&A at the 'Future of Life Institute', with Elon Musk and others answering the question "is some form of super-intelligence possible?", creeps me out (Musk comes out the most sane): [this video] > The author’s point is that by (say) 2050 we will likely see AI asking unsettlingly “intelligent” questions More unsettling than the questions of a young child? What unsettling questions could it ask according to you? I just do not see what you're getting at, at all. The question that arises when I read comments like yours is: are some humans so alienated from themselves and others that they believe machines will be