Below is a comment regarding a critique of Nick Bostrom's flawed AI-risk logic. It is a point about the logical fallacy of comparing human-gorilla relationships to human-AI relationships.
My point is the analogy is logically flawed, which analogously is
tantamount, if I express it in a mathematical way, to stating 2+2=6;
whereupon the flawed mathematician states we need to prepare for 6
regarding 2+2, which means we are preparing for something non-existent.
In
fact preparing for 6 based on 2+2 could be harmful, if for example the
calculation is regarding calibrating altimeters for airplanes. An alternate way of comprehending Bostrom's logical error is considering how someone could mistakenly deduce 2+2=22, which could at first glance appear true but it would give the wrong height for altimeter calibration.
If an analogy is wrong, if a comparison is wrong, it
could entail a person eating chalk because it looked like cheese,
which is not healthy similar to drinking poison by mistake because it
looked like water.
At first glance the gorillas comparison may
look valid, but it falls apart when submitted to logical scrutiny, which
leads, if we subscribe to the flawed logic, to making decisions based
upon faulty information, misguided decisions. I think Bostrom's flawed conclusions are the most serious existential risk we face.
Below is another comment on the same issue.
Why can't Mathieu
Dumoulin see he is comparing chalk to cheese? Mathieu is essentially stating chalk looks like cheese therefore we can eat tasty
chalk. He wrote: "Humans smarter than gorillas leads to humans
dominating gorillas. AI which would exceed humans intelligence would
similarly dominate humans. This is an existential risk to humans."
The
massive difference between humans-gorillas versus humans-AI is humans
are not the AI creations of gorillas, which leads to a totally
different human-gorilla relationship if we consider the accurate
comparison.
The point is if gorillas had created humans via AI
engineering, intelligent engineering of higher intelligence, gorillas
would be able to communicate with humans easily, intelligently,
furthermore gorillas instead of living in rainforests would live in an
highly advanced civilization where science, laws, and culture are
clearly evident. In this case I doubt humans would dominate or abuse intelligent
gorillas.
Only when a lower species intelligently designs higher
intelligence, whereupon then the higher intelligence dominates the creator species,
will the comparisons to humans and AI be valid. The problem with
gorillas is they did not create human intelligence whereas humans are
creating AI minds, which is a massive difference rendering comparisons
logically invalid.
