3 ms·
Would have been far more believable if they said 71.24% chance. 70% sounds like they're just spitballing.
by DebtDeflation 2y ago
Would have been far more believable if they said 71.24% chance. 70% sounds like they're just spitballing.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoThe threshold is “destroy or catastrophically harm humanity,” a threshold which one could argue the burning of coal, existence of nuclear weapons, social media for children and a good fraction of living world leaders have already reached [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/04/technology/openai-culture-whistleblowers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/04/technology/openai-culture...
- bork1 2y agoAgreed. In addition to sounding like spitballing, even the linked articles (from what I saw) don't show a clear way in which the former employee came to 70%. Overall this article comes across as fear-mongering but one of the linked sources was an interesting blog post (IMO) about why people should _stop_ providing specific estimations of p(doom). https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EwyviSHWrQcvicsry/stop-talking-about-p-doom https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EwyviSHWrQcvicsry/stop-talki...
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoThey are just spitballing. Nobody has any actual idea yet whether AGI is even possible. Nobody has a statistically valid sample of what AGIs have done to civilizations. Nobody actually knows anything. They're just spitballing.
- DebtDeflation 2y agoThat was my point. 70% is a made up number. If you're going to just make up a number, may as well throw some false precision in as well, lest you appear lazy.