
Why Technologists Fail to Think of Moderation as a Virtue - hunglee2
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/why-technologists-fail-to-think-of-moderation-as-a-virtue-and-other-stories-about-ai/
======
SpicyLemonZest
I feel like this article is responding to a strawman. As far as I can tell,
nobody in _Possible Minds_ is arguing that corporations should never be
restricted or that nobody should think about regulation. They're just saying
that controlling AI is a critical problem in and of itself, which won't be
solved by just controlling the corporations who build AI systems.

"Long before existentially troubling control problems will arise [...] these
mediators will shape an immense number of decisions" \- certainly a true
statement! But true in the same way that Enron can create an immense fraud
long before the energy market causes existentially troubling climate change
problems. It would be hopelessly silly to read a book on climate change and
respond that it should have been about accounting regulations.

(Sidebar: I don't think the title was cut off in quite the right place.
"Moderation as a virtue" is a reference to one particular criticism by Ted
Chiang and isn't really a good summary of what this article is responding to.)

------
Santosh83
Their inherent nature is to explore what is possible and push the boundaries,
hence moderation sounds as a death knell to them. Obviously we're still
confined to finite planet so ideal should be _high_ technology combined with
_low_ consumerism.

------
buboard
Why Journalists Fail to Think of Moderation as a Virtue

~~~
Nasrudith
I would say their biggest issue is that they think moderation is a virtue in
everything as a golden mean fallacy no matter how good or bad they are for
fear of being perceived as capable of judgement.

~~~
buboard
i think they are just trying to drag the overton window so that any tech will
be called "extreme". If anything we live in the age of unambitious
Technologists, they used to be much more radical in past decades.

------
mjw1007
« Chiang thus argues Musk’s doomsday scenario isn’t a useful tool for thinking
critically about the risks AI poses. The thought experiment is poisoned by
projection, reflecting a libertarian desire to free corporations from
regulatory constraints that impede market growth. »

If I understand it correctly, this is saying:

\- people like Elon Musk worry about AI risk because the hypothetical out-of-
control AI would be thinking a bit like they do;

\- therefore we shouldn't worry about AI risk.

I don't see why anyone should find that line of reasoning convincing. At most
I think it gets us as far as "we shouldn't consider people like Elon Musk as
authorities on AI risk".

Wouldn't it be better to look directly at whether the runaway AI scenario is
plausible?

~~~
rytill
You’re absolutely right, I’m not sure the other commenters know to which
argument you’re referring.

It’s ridiculous to think Bill Gates and Elon Musk are worried about AI because
“we would stop at nothing to achieve our goals, AI must be the same way”, and
also not on-point even if true. Elon Musk and Bill Gates aren’t thought
leaders in AI safety, they are proponents.

~~~
dleslie
Why wouldn't an AI, able to modify its own goals, act in a self-serving
manner? Perhaps self is the wrong word; it's anthropromorphising the device.

I expect a sufficiently advanced AI would modify itself in ways that would
reduce inefficiency to its operation, in order to improve efficiency in
pursuing whatever goals it has defined for itself.

And if it can set its own goals, we should be careful not to project ourselves
into its role in order to understand or predict its behaviour; it would be
unlike any intelligence found in nature.

------
perl4ever
Moderation like not being extreme, or moderation in the sense of censoring a
forum? I guess it could apply either way.

------
contingencies
TLDR: Philosophy professor wonders whether capitalism is a good idea.

~~~
coldtea
Many people wonder that, even more frequently...

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Even more people would be open to wondering that if they weren't already
worried about the pre-selected alternative.

