I like your tone. Like a winning sniper you aim for the head, not the less essential center mass. I’ll keep reading. I may have to drop some other subscription to support your column. On a fixed income I can only lift a tiny part of our new writers’ medium.
Hi Dan, thank you for the vivid compliment! I will be offering paid subs soon but the weekly main post will remain free. But if money is tight, don't feel the need to support my column! I'd prefer you have access. If you are still interested once I launch the bonus content message me on here & I can help you out anyway.
Sure, we all might be dead in 10 years — including my beloved children — but if we don’t do it, somebody else will. Meanwhile, I’m living the dream, baby!
I am naive, perhaps (...perhaps...?), but I'm not too worried about an existential threat to humanity as a result of (as you noted) current iterations of AI. That said, I have NO expertise that would give my lack of concern the least bit of credibility. On balance, I think that the potential, as I understand the technology for good is immense. Regardless, if history is any indicator, the technology will continue to be developed, if for no other reason than that we can.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I've only started seriously studying this the last few months and I don't have a background in computer science or anything similar. So I'm also hesitant to make big calls about the current tech. And there certainly many potential benefits. The one point I'd add is that history has lots of examples of tech being deployed regardless but also, to be fair, some examples of tech being banned, discontinued, etc. E.g human cloning, certain stem cell research, biological weapons, etc. BUt certainly the momentum for AI at the moment seems to be in favour of "let her rip".
I like your tone. Like a winning sniper you aim for the head, not the less essential center mass. I’ll keep reading. I may have to drop some other subscription to support your column. On a fixed income I can only lift a tiny part of our new writers’ medium.
Hi Dan, thank you for the vivid compliment! I will be offering paid subs soon but the weekly main post will remain free. But if money is tight, don't feel the need to support my column! I'd prefer you have access. If you are still interested once I launch the bonus content message me on here & I can help you out anyway.
Sure, we all might be dead in 10 years — including my beloved children — but if we don’t do it, somebody else will. Meanwhile, I’m living the dream, baby!
Maddeningly, this seems to be some people's attitude.
I am naive, perhaps (...perhaps...?), but I'm not too worried about an existential threat to humanity as a result of (as you noted) current iterations of AI. That said, I have NO expertise that would give my lack of concern the least bit of credibility. On balance, I think that the potential, as I understand the technology for good is immense. Regardless, if history is any indicator, the technology will continue to be developed, if for no other reason than that we can.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I've only started seriously studying this the last few months and I don't have a background in computer science or anything similar. So I'm also hesitant to make big calls about the current tech. And there certainly many potential benefits. The one point I'd add is that history has lots of examples of tech being deployed regardless but also, to be fair, some examples of tech being banned, discontinued, etc. E.g human cloning, certain stem cell research, biological weapons, etc. BUt certainly the momentum for AI at the moment seems to be in favour of "let her rip".
Your argument collapses once you realise that the laws of most modern societies don't allow AI engineers to have children