> the most important work isn’t stopping AGI - it’s making sure we raise our AGI mind children well enough.
Can we just take a pause and appreciate how nuts this article is?
> the most important work isn’t stopping AGI - it’s making sure we raise our AGI mind children well enough.
Can we just take a pause and appreciate how nuts this article is?
That part of it is the reasonable part, instead of the usual idea that the AGI gets free knowledge/skills/wisdom/evil from something about its structure.
It's one thing to call a program your brainchild metaphorically but this feels literal given the rest of the article.
I am amazed that people who unironically put a program on the same level as a person (I mean clearly that "child" will grow up) can influence these policies
Maybe it would have to be a device, not just a program. Or maybe it really is possible to emulate a person with the right program on current hardware. Who can say? The lack of physical interaction sounds less than ideal for its development, then.
It isn’t. The kids are already getting stupider because they offload all their schoolwork to LLMs. There’s nothing nuts about this.
He's not talking about actual kids.