> but what I don't understand is why aren't more brilliant people even a little bit conflicted about this? How do you know they're not? Unless you've had perso

> but what I don't understand is why aren't more brilliant people even a little bit conflicted about this? How do you know they're not? Unless you've had personal one on one conversations with the people you're referring to, are you really confident that you understand the most nuanced version of their position? I mean, most people, in published statements, interviews, etc., are probably not going to talk very much about the scenario where they have a < 1% subjective bayesian prior. But that doesn't mean they don't still have that inner reservation. > It seems if you even hint you have some doubts and say well, maybe 1% chance Eliezer is right you are told NO, it's not even 1%. It's 0%! Maybe it's just that we run in different circles, or maybe it's a matter of interpretation, but I don't feel like I've seen that. Or at least not on any wide scale.