I'm 100% with Torvalds on this when he laughs at the prepostorous notion that AI will become a doomsday scenario. I think it'll become more and more specialised, branch out to other fields and become reasonably good. But there's a huge leap to go from there to HGI.
> any powerful system that optimises for something that's different from what humans want.
Except this notion rests on the premise that humans will not be in full control, which leads to the exponential growth argument which leads back to the Skynet like scenario.
> the point is that even uncertainty is enough for action
And that action is...what exactly? People won't stop building intelligent systems. There is no real path that we have from where we are to HGI, so it's not like researchers have a concrete path. Just what exactly does this research look like?
> "We've got no idea what the chance of run-away climate change is, so we shouldn't do anything about it."
Extremely Poor analogy. We have decades worth of concrete data that tells us the nature and reality of climate change. We demonstrably know that it's a threat. Can you say the same about AI?
Also, I'll take the time to re-iterate how heavily skeptical I remain of groups like MIRI that are spearheaded by people who don't believe in the scientific method, believe in stuff like cryogenics, have history of trying to profit off of someone else's copyrighted material and have someone managed to convince a whole lot of people that donating them is the best way to fight off the AI doomsday scenario. People should do their research before linking to stuff like that. :(