3 ms·

Wouldn’t Occam’s razor say that the people speaking are highly motivated to continue being paid? Relying on their fear of future outcomes seems to be misplaced

by moshun 14d ago

Wouldn’t Occam’s razor say that the people speaking are highly motivated to continue being paid? Relying on their fear of future outcomes seems to be misplaced to judge the honesty of their statements.

howunfortunate 14d ago
> continue being paid What I mean by Occam's Razor: There are many assumptions that need to be true to link "they say they're terrified of AI" to "they get paid more / longer", in both their own minds and everyone else's. It's a bit of 4D chess that could go their way, but also could go 100 different ways. In contrast, linking "they say it" to "they believe it" is simple.
- layer8 14d ago
  Justifying “they believe it” isn’t so simple, however.
- bheadmaster 14d ago
  Occam's razor is about minimizing the number of assumptions needed for a conclusion. In this case, "they believe it" is the same number of assumptions as "they get paid" - just one.
  - howunfortunate 14d ago
    Saying "I'm terrified of my job" does not normally lead fo getting paid more. Those links are the extra assumptions.
    - bheadmaster 14d ago
      An assumption is something that we can't know, yet assume is true for the sake of coming up with a theory. What we're assuming here is their intention. The implication (or as you said, "the links"), that talking about how dangerous their product is leads to more money, is true regardless of their intention. They create hype, they get money, that's not an assumption, that's an observation. The question is only if their intention was to make money, or are they speaking from the heart. That's the assumption we choose.
      - howunfortunate 14d ago
        > They create hype, they get money, that's not an assumption, that's an observation. Because we can't observe the counterfactual world, this actually is just an assumption. Diving their intention also still requires many assumptions about their intermediate beliefs that I find dubious
        deleted 14d ago
        [deleted]
        bheadmaster 14d ago
        > Because we can't observe the counterfactual world, this actually is just an assumption. If you discard all empirical claims categorically due to "inability to observe the counterfactual world", your own reasoning falls apart. Why would you assume people mean what they say? > Diving their intention also still requires many assumptions about their intermediate beliefs that I find dubious You're assuming CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies are honest. I find that dubious.
talon8635 14d ago
Occam’s razor doesn’t often explain not taking people for their worst and assuming a conspiracy theory
ares623 14d ago
I think it goes beyond money now. A future where AI does not destroy the world means a world where the people who work at these companies are just like everyone else.

by moshun 14d ago

howunfortunate 14d ago

> continue being paid What I mean by Occam's Razor: There are many assumptions that need to be true to link "they say they're terrified of AI" to "they get paid more / longer", in both their own minds and everyone else's. It's a bit of 4D chess that could go their way, but also could go 100 different ways. In contrast, linking "they say it" to "they believe it" is simple.

layer8 14d ago
Justifying “they believe it” isn’t so simple, however.
bheadmaster 14d ago
Occam's razor is about minimizing the number of assumptions needed for a conclusion. In this case, "they believe it" is the same number of assumptions as "they get paid" - just one.
- howunfortunate 14d ago
  Saying "I'm terrified of my job" does not normally lead fo getting paid more. Those links are the extra assumptions.
  - bheadmaster 14d ago
    An assumption is something that we can't know, yet assume is true for the sake of coming up with a theory. What we're assuming here is their intention. The implication (or as you said, "the links"), that talking about how dangerous their product is leads to more money, is true regardless of their intention. They create hype, they get money, that's not an assumption, that's an observation. The question is only if their intention was to make money, or are they speaking from the heart. That's the assumption we choose.
    - howunfortunate 14d ago
      > They create hype, they get money, that's not an assumption, that's an observation. Because we can't observe the counterfactual world, this actually is just an assumption. Diving their intention also still requires many assumptions about their intermediate beliefs that I find dubious
      - deleted 14d ago
        [deleted]
      - bheadmaster 14d ago
        > Because we can't observe the counterfactual world, this actually is just an assumption. If you discard all empirical claims categorically due to "inability to observe the counterfactual world", your own reasoning falls apart. Why would you assume people mean what they say? > Diving their intention also still requires many assumptions about their intermediate beliefs that I find dubious You're assuming CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies are honest. I find that dubious.

talon8635 14d ago

Occam’s razor doesn’t often explain not taking people for their worst and assuming a conspiracy theory

ares623 14d ago

I think it goes beyond money now. A future where AI does not destroy the world means a world where the people who work at these companies are just like everyone else.