3 ms·
None of these four points are part of the author's focus. Broadly, I would summarize the author's points as: - Alignment and capabilities research are not sepa
by akprasad 3y ago
None of these four points are part of the author's focus. Broadly, I would summarize the author's points as:
- Alignment and capabilities research are not separate. There is an "alignment dilemma" on whether to contribute to alignment work or abstain from it.
- Discussions of AI risk are subject to "persuasion paradoxes" that make it difficult to reach clarity.
- It is helpful to take a "recipes" framing: (a) what are recipes for destroying the world? (b) how likely is an AI to discover or enact these recipes?
Overall, a clear post.
- mitthrowaway2 3y agoIt's clear, although I think the "recipes for ruin" focuses too narrowly on the lower bound for ways to destroy the world, like a bright teenager with $10,000. Another important framing is "what degree of economic resources might an AI be entrusted to manage, in the future, and are there any recipes for ruin that fall within that range". For example, if an ASI is put in charge of managing an investment fund with $10 billion in assets, would it be capable of building a doomsday device (and disguising it as a productive investment)?
- labrador 3y agoAgreed, but devastating consequences are my interest