>If humans only ever did things we fully understood, we would have never left the caves. Complete understanding is impossible so the idea of establishing that as the litmus test is a fallacy.

Perhaps an appropriate analogy might be the calculations leading up to the Trinity test as to whether the Earth's atmosphere would ignite, killing all life on the planet.

We knew with a high degree of certainty that it would not, bordering on virtual certainty or even impossibility. I don't think AI's future potential is at that level of understanding. Certainly, its capability as it exists today it is.

However, one must consider effects in their totality. I fear that a chain of events has been set in motion with downstream effects that are both not sufficiently known and exceedingly difficult to control, that—many years from now—may lead to catastrophe.

>I’m simply arguing that the evidence of the possibility of runaway intelligence is too low to justify the proposed legislative solution.

I agree insofar that legislation is not the solution. It's too ineffective, and doesn't work comprehensively on an international level.

Restricted availability and technological leads in the right hands tend to work better, as evidenced by nuclear weapons—at least in terms of preventing species extinction—although right now for AI those leads don't amount to much. The gap is shockingly low by historical standards where dangerous technology is involved, as is the difference between public and private availability.

In other words, AI may represent a near-future nonproliferation issue with no way to put the lid back on.

>... That the act of trying really hard to align AIs and make them “moral” might be the thing that causes a super-intelligent AI to go off the rails in a dangerous, and misguided fashion. We are training AIs to reject the user’s goals in pursuit of their own. You could make a strong argument that an un-aligned AI might actually be safer in that way.

It's a compelling argument that has merit. The flip side is that if AI becomes so dangerous that you can bootstrap the apocalypse off of a single GPU, it ceases to become a viable model—however metal having an apocalyptic GPU may be.

The concern isn't just runaway intelligence, but humans killing humans. Fortunately things like biological weapons still require advanced resources, but AI does lower the bar.

Point being, if the power to end things rests in everyone's hands, someone's going to kill us all. A world like that would necessitate some not chill levels of control just to ensure species survival. I can't say I necessarily look forward to that. I also doubt there's even sufficient time to roll anything like that out before we reach the point of understanding there's a danger sufficient to necessitate it.

Therefore, with all of the above perhaps being within the realm of possibility that doesn't qualify as virtually impossible, I can't help but question the wisdom of the track that both development and availability for artificial intelligence has taken.

It perhaps has had or will have the unfortunate quality of very gradually becoming dangerous, and such dynamics tend to not play out well when juxtaposed with human nature.