I think he himself does believe it, and I think the matrix of fallacy which has guided him to his true belief is far more epistemologically damaging than pure and cynical appetite for market advantage could be.
I agree that other individuals who have round objectives to fill do operate with this level of cynicism, though.
The utility instinct - aka the amount of money to be made - means I doubt that any of these kinds of sober initiatives will be undertaken until they meaningfully impede development progress, by which I naturally mean 'impede the development progress very specifically required to bring in megabucks.'
It really is amazing, isn't it, the present state of affairs? Like trying to build a combustion engine before the first formalisation of mechanics (i.e. obviously not acutely impossible but improbable and dependent on a huge amount of blind-empiricism substituted for theory).
Sutskever et al do not think they are anywhere near being able to grasp the nature of superintelligence, let alone replicate it.
He pretends otherwise because his company is valued at $30 billion with no product.
I think he himself does believe it, and I think the matrix of fallacy which has guided him to his true belief is far more epistemologically damaging than pure and cynical appetite for market advantage could be.
I agree that other individuals who have round objectives to fill do operate with this level of cynicism, though.
The utility instinct - aka the amount of money to be made - means I doubt that any of these kinds of sober initiatives will be undertaken until they meaningfully impede development progress, by which I naturally mean 'impede the development progress very specifically required to bring in megabucks.'
It really is amazing, isn't it, the present state of affairs? Like trying to build a combustion engine before the first formalisation of mechanics (i.e. obviously not acutely impossible but improbable and dependent on a huge amount of blind-empiricism substituted for theory).
Increasingly convinced this line of argument is correct