http://paultyma.blogspot.fr/2015/10/how-artificial-intellige...
Most people live in appalling, inhuman conditions:
$100 monthly income puts a person in the top 52.40% earners worldwide. [0] $300 monthly income puts a person in the top 28.35% earners worldwide. [0]
Human intelligence is obviously suboptimal for solving global problems, perhaps AI will do better.
That's misleading without considering numerous other variables - cost of things? It seems to me to be the kind of statement aimed at deceitfully triggering emotions, by the likes of charities. Charities are like police - there for good reason, but along with the good intentions they have a slightly seedy side. Of the countries I've lived in, the one where I was paid least had the highest standard of living.
Calculation methodology is available on the linked page:
"For currency conversion we use Purchasing Power Parity Dollars (PPP$) in order to take into account the difference in cost of living between countries; PPP$ are also less susceptible to short term fluctuations."
I've submitted it for HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10637207
On a long enough timeline, we're probably screwed by Fermi's Great Filter regardless, but a self-improving machine learning singularity can certainly accelerate the process!
I think this is affirmed by the fact that most state-of-the-art AI depends primarily on massive volumes of data rather than clever algorithms. Massive datasets are inherently concentrated in the hands of the few and powerful, so it seems unlikely that a rogue actor could acquire suitable data.
And yes, it is debatable, but as Tegmark puts it: relying on luck is probably not a good strategy.
It can't be about microprocessors, since we've had those for decades and don't have murderous AI yet.
The point is to suggest something that nobody would do by accident, but almost anyone can do intentionally, and nobody can stop others from doing. It's a thought experiment: suppose that taking some common everyday substance, and using it with a common appliance many people have access to, would destroy the world.
Right now, a very small handful of people have the ability to existentially threaten humanity. Fortunately, those people seem moderately unlikely to do so, and the process for becoming one of those people selects at least somewhat against the type of craziness that would hit the button just to see what happens, or because they genuinely want the world to end.
Out of seven billion people, based on existing examples of human behavior, it seems exceedingly likely that there exist people who would intentionally choose to to destroy the world.
[1] I certainly think it will become possible, but the timeframe is indefinite. If we get really lucky and breakthrough after breakthrough is achieved, it could be within 10 years. But it could be 20 years, it could be 100 years.