4 ms·

I'm very much an AI doomer myself, and even I don't think AI 2027 holds water. I find myself quite confused about what its proponents (including Scott Alexander

I'm very much an AI doomer myself, and even I don't think AI 2027 holds water. I find myself quite confused about what its proponents (including Scott Alexander) are even expecting to get from the project, because it seems to me like the median result will be a big loss of AI-doomer credibilty in 2028 when the talking point shifts to "but it's a long tailed prediction!"

hollerith 1y ago
Same here. I ask the reader not to react to AI 2027 by dismissing the possibility that it is quite dangerous to let the AI labs continue with their labbing.
- elefanten 1y ago
  This is feeling like a retread of climate change messaging. Serious problem requiring serious thought (even without “AI doom” as the scenario, just the political economic and social disruptions suffice) but being most loudly championed via aggressive timelines and significant exaggerations. The overreaction (on both sides) to be followed by fatigue and disinterest.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    Or maybe, just maybe, AI doom isn’t a serious problem, and the lack of credible arguments for it should be evidence of such.
098799 1y ago
Because if we're unlucky, Scott will think in the final seconds of his life as he watches the world burn "I could have tried harder and worried less about my reputation".
- mitthrowaway2 1y ago
  I don't think it's a matter of being worried about reputation. Making credible predictions and rigorous analysis is important in all scenarios. If superintelligence really strikes in 2027, I feel like AI 2027 would be right only by coincidence, and would probably only have detracted from safety engineering efforts in the process.
heavyset_go 1y ago
Scott will just post a ten thousand word article to deflect and his audience will reorient themselves like they always do.
- mitthrowaway2 1y ago
  You say "like they always do"; are there any previous examples of them always doing such?

hollerith 1y ago

Same here. I ask the reader not to react to AI 2027 by dismissing the possibility that it is quite dangerous to let the AI labs continue with their labbing.

elefanten 1y ago
This is feeling like a retread of climate change messaging. Serious problem requiring serious thought (even without “AI doom” as the scenario, just the political economic and social disruptions suffice) but being most loudly championed via aggressive timelines and significant exaggerations. The overreaction (on both sides) to be followed by fatigue and disinterest.
- adastra22 1y ago
  Or maybe, just maybe, AI doom isn’t a serious problem, and the lack of credible arguments for it should be evidence of such.

098799 1y ago

Because if we're unlucky, Scott will think in the final seconds of his life as he watches the world burn "I could have tried harder and worried less about my reputation".

mitthrowaway2 1y ago
I don't think it's a matter of being worried about reputation. Making credible predictions and rigorous analysis is important in all scenarios. If superintelligence really strikes in 2027, I feel like AI 2027 would be right only by coincidence, and would probably only have detracted from safety engineering efforts in the process.

heavyset_go 1y ago

Scott will just post a ten thousand word article to deflect and his audience will reorient themselves like they always do.

mitthrowaway2 1y ago
You say "like they always do"; are there any previous examples of them always doing such?