4 ms·

If you read the survey, you'll find that many concerned researchers don't believe we're at a 90% chance of doom, but e.g. 10%. So, this type of response wouldn'

If you read the survey, you'll find that many concerned researchers don't believe we're at a 90% chance of doom, but e.g. 10%. So, this type of response wouldn't be rational if they're thinking that things will go fine most of the time. If these researchers are thinking logically, they would also realize that this kind of reaction has little chance of success, especially if research continues in places like China. It's more likely that such an approach would backfire in the court of public opinion.

echelon 3y ago
> If you read the survey Not a nice way to engage in debate. I've spent more time listening to and refuting these arguments than most. Including debating Eliezer. > many concerned researchers don't believe we're at a 90% chance of doom, but e.g. 10%. A 10% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth would result in every country in the world diverting all of their budgets into building a means to deflect it. > So, this type of response wouldn't be rational. This is the rational response to a 10% chance? These are funny numbers and nobody really has their skin in the game here. If I believed (truly believed) their arguments, I would throw myself at stopping this. Nobody is doing anything except for making armchair prognostications and/or speaking to congress as an AI CEO about how only big companies such as their own should be doing AI. > especially if research continues in places like China. I like how both sides of this argument are using the specter of China as a means to further their argument.
- phillipcarter 3y ago
  > Not a nice way to engage in debate. So...you didn't read the survey.
- ALittleLight 3y ago
  What if some of the experts said "It's really hard to know, but our best guess is there is a 10% chance of this thing hitting the Earth" and other experts said "I really don't think it'll hit the Earth"? My best guess is that Earth wouldn't do much at all about the risk as that seems to be basically what we are facing with AI x-risk.
- zone411 3y ago
  Yudkowsky represents the extreme end of risk concern. You can't fault others who estimate the risk at 10%, with huge uncertainty about when this risk will materialize and its chances, for not behaving as you'd expect him to. Believing that people will take extreme actions, which would ruin their careers and likely backfire, based on a 10% chance of things going terribly wrong in maybe 30 years is strange.
- kalkin 3y ago
  "If [people who I disagree with] really believed what they said, they'd do [X Y or Z extreme thing]" is almost always a bad argument. Consider the possibility that instead, the people who actually believe the thing you don't have spent more time thinking seriously about their strategy than you have, and you are not in fact better both at being you and at being them than they are. I'm used to this pattern showing up as "lol if you really don't like capitalism how come you use money" but it's just as bad here.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    A less-than-optimal response isn't very indicative of anything, but I think you should definitely think twice when the intensity of the protest is grossly out of proportion with the intensity of the rhetoric. X-risk people are talking about the complete extermination of humanity but all they do is write internet essays about it. They aren't even availing themselves of standard protesting tactics, like standing outside AI businesses with signs or trying to intimidate researchers. Some form of real protest is table stakes for being taken seriously when you're crying about the end of the world.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  I don't want to comment on the rest but > > many concerned researchers don't believe we're at a 90% chance of doom, but e.g. 10%. > A 10% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth would result in every country in the world diverting all of their budgets into building a means to deflect it. Have you been observing what is happening with climate change. Chances are much worse than 10% and pretty much every country in the world is finding reasons why they should not act.

echelon 3y ago

> If you read the survey Not a nice way to engage in debate. I've spent more time listening to and refuting these arguments than most. Including debating Eliezer. > many concerned researchers don't believe we're at a 90% chance of doom, but e.g. 10%. A 10% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth would result in every country in the world diverting all of their budgets into building a means to deflect it. > So, this type of response wouldn't be rational. This is the rational response to a 10% chance? These are funny numbers and nobody really has their skin in the game here. If I believed (truly believed) their arguments, I would throw myself at stopping this. Nobody is doing anything except for making armchair prognostications and/or speaking to congress as an AI CEO about how only big companies such as their own should be doing AI. > especially if research continues in places like China. I like how both sides of this argument are using the specter of China as a means to further their argument.

phillipcarter 3y ago
> Not a nice way to engage in debate. So...you didn't read the survey.
ALittleLight 3y ago
What if some of the experts said "It's really hard to know, but our best guess is there is a 10% chance of this thing hitting the Earth" and other experts said "I really don't think it'll hit the Earth"? My best guess is that Earth wouldn't do much at all about the risk as that seems to be basically what we are facing with AI x-risk.
zone411 3y ago
Yudkowsky represents the extreme end of risk concern. You can't fault others who estimate the risk at 10%, with huge uncertainty about when this risk will materialize and its chances, for not behaving as you'd expect him to. Believing that people will take extreme actions, which would ruin their careers and likely backfire, based on a 10% chance of things going terribly wrong in maybe 30 years is strange.
kalkin 3y ago
"If [people who I disagree with] really believed what they said, they'd do [X Y or Z extreme thing]" is almost always a bad argument. Consider the possibility that instead, the people who actually believe the thing you don't have spent more time thinking seriously about their strategy than you have, and you are not in fact better both at being you and at being them than they are. I'm used to this pattern showing up as "lol if you really don't like capitalism how come you use money" but it's just as bad here.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  A less-than-optimal response isn't very indicative of anything, but I think you should definitely think twice when the intensity of the protest is grossly out of proportion with the intensity of the rhetoric. X-risk people are talking about the complete extermination of humanity but all they do is write internet essays about it. They aren't even availing themselves of standard protesting tactics, like standing outside AI businesses with signs or trying to intimidate researchers. Some form of real protest is table stakes for being taken seriously when you're crying about the end of the world.
cycomanic 3y ago
I don't want to comment on the rest but > > many concerned researchers don't believe we're at a 90% chance of doom, but e.g. 10%. > A 10% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth would result in every country in the world diverting all of their budgets into building a means to deflect it. Have you been observing what is happening with climate change. Chances are much worse than 10% and pretty much every country in the world is finding reasons why they should not act.