HOW TO EARN BITCOINS EASILY

2.1 Technical Objection: AI / AGI Doesn’t Exist, developments in AI are not necessarily progress towards AGI

2.2 Technical Objection: Superintelligence is Impossible

2.3 Technical Objection: Self-Improvement is Impossible

2.4 Technical Objection: AI Can’t be Conscious Proponents argue that in order to be dangerous AI has to be conscious

2.5 Technical Objection: AI Can just be a Tool

2.6 Technical Objection: We can Always just turn it off

2.7 Technical Objection: We can reprogram AIs if we don't like what they do

2.8 Technical Objection: AI Doesn't have a body so it can't hurt us

2.9 Technical Objection: If AI is as Capable as You Say, it Will not Make Dumb Mistakes

2.10 Technical Objection: Superintelligence Would (Probably) Not Be Catastrophic

2.11 Technical Objection: Self-preservation and Control Drives Don't Just Appear They Have to be Programmed In

2.12 Technical Objection: AI can't generate novel plans

(From Kaj Sotola - Disjunctive Scenarios of AI Risk) Core arguments for AI safety can often be reduced to:

1. The capability claim: AI can become capable enough to potentially inflict major damage to human well-being.
2. The value claim: AI may act according to values which are not aligned with those of humanity, and in doing so cause considerable harm

(From Bostrom - Superintelligence) Bostroms argument goes as:

1. An AGI could become superintelligent
2. Superintelligence would enable the AGI to take over the world

I believe technical objections can usually reduce to an objection to one of these.

• On 2.1: OpenAI, Antropic, et al have an explicit goal of general intelligence.
• On 2.2, 2.3: This argument presumes a hard limit to intelligence. Of course, so long as the limit is above humans, this is irrelevant
• On 2.4: AI Risk is not predicated on AI systems experiencing qualia. See Alan Turing “Argument from Consciousness” in his seminal paper
• On 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11: see instrumental convergence from pauseai. You cannot bring the coffee if you are turned off
• Modern viruses are a subset of self reproducing AI’s. Given the challenges of deactivating them it is evident why turning off AI is not straightforward.

3.1 AI Safety Objections: AI Safety Can’t be Done Today

3.2 AI Safety Objections: AI Can’t be Safe

• There are two known options: prudence or negligence.
• On 3.1: There are many papers that disprove this. Yampolskiy, R.V., Artificial superintelligence: a futuristic approach. 2015: cRc Press.
• On 3.2: The first step to failure is not trying

4.1 Ethical Objections: Superintelligence is Benevolence

4.2 Ethical Objections: Let the Smarter Beings Win

• On 4.1: See Bostroms Orthogonality Thesis Armstrong, S., General purpose intelligence: arguing the orthogonality thesis. Analysis and Metaphysics, 2013(12): p. 68-84.
• On 4.2: The vast majority of humanity is not on board with self destruction

5.1 Biased Objections: AI Safety Researchers are Non-Coders

5.2 Biased Objections: Majority of AI Researchers is not Worried

5.3 Biased Objections: Keep it Quiet

5.4 Biased Objections: Safety Work just Creates an Overhead Slowing Down Research

5.5 Biased Objections: Heads in the Sand

5.6 Biased Objections: If we don't do it, Someone else will

5.7 Biased Objections: AI Safety Requires Global Cooperation

• On 5.1: Per Yampolskiy one doesn’t need to write code in order to understand the inherent risk of AGI, just like someone doesn’t have to work in a wet lab to understand dangers of pandemics from biological weapons.
• On 5.2: Per Yampolskiy: Not only is this untrue, it is also irrelevant, even if 100% of mathematicians believed 2 + 2 = 5, it would still be wrong. Scientific facts are not determined by democratic process, and you don’t get to vote on reality or truth.
• On 5.7: Catastrophic risks are present in more than one country. Global cooperation is required to address them. AI Safety experts generally grant this.

6.1 Miscellaneous Objection: So Easy it will be Solved Automatically

6.2 Miscellaneous Objection: AI Regulation Will Prevent Problems