upvote

points

by jacobgold4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby duhhhhh12124 hours ago|
next
[-]
bruh what? Are we reading the same blog? Bryan says the responsibility is the person making the extraordinary claim. If tomorrow Jacob Coxon comes on CNN and says "Jacob Gold is an extinction risk to humanity". What are we supposed to do? Put you in a bunker and never let you see the light of day until someone proves otherwise?

If someone doesn't accept an extraordinary claim without evidence, that doesn't mean they are making an extraordinary claim.

reply
upvoteby jacobgold4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There seem to be two extraordinary claims which lack evidence:

a) 10% existential risk

b) 0% existential risk

reply
upvoteby goatlover4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
What's the evidence for there being an existential risk? We are provided scenarios which read like science fiction about RSI and ASI right around the corner, resulting in magic sounding technology that can do anything the person making the claim wants it to do, because it can just make itself smart enough in a short amount of time. But the person making the claim has to actually show how such a thing is possible in the real world, not just a story.
reply
upvoteby jacobgold3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The clear and predictable power of AI is the evidence for existential risk. Even if we don't get RSI or ASI, there's a risk we'll automate our world, then it'll break and we'll starve, etc.
reply
upvoteby worik3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> The clear and predictable power of AI is the evidence for existential risk

* The "predictable power of AI" is very advanced predictive text. What a lot you can do with that, and there are clear limits.

* AI has no intent. The greedheads who find themselves in these positions of power have clear intent (often but not always bordering on and actively becoming misanthropic) put their intentions on AI - hence to doom mongering

* Who will starve with the failure of agriculture? A few, a lot, but not everybody. We are good at this - have been doing it a lot longer than computing or science

reply
upvoteby adithyareddy4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
(a) is an extraordinary claim, (b) is not an extraordinary claim.
reply
upvoteby jacobgold4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There are very clear and plausible pathways from AI to human extinction level events, regardless of how small you think the probability is.

So yes, it very obviously is an extraordinary claim to say there is 0% existential risk.

reply
upvoteby adithyareddy2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There are no clear and plausible pathways to human extinction level events that AI makes worse or more likely in any way. It is obviously not an extraordinary claim at all.
reply
upvoteby duhhhhh12123 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Good god. You are burden shifting. a) big claim no evidence. b). says a has no evidence; therefore, I will continue to not let fear manipulate me into believing a claim without evidence.

I have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes a big claim without evidence.

reply
upvoteby jacobgold3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
B is not a claim that A has no evidence, that's just confused. It's an independent claim that there is 0% risk.
reply
upvoteby 4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby bcantrill4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Saying that we don't need to fear human extinction in the next ten years (or even the next hundred?) does not feel like an extraordinary claim?
reply
upvoteby 0xDEAFBEAD4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
No one knows what is going to happen. But a lot of species have been going extinct lately.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDd58a4WQAAWaXh.jpg

reply
upvoteby mortenjorck4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The students in the computer lab had no guarantee that they wouldn't, say, download a copy of Napster infected with the CIH virus later. The fact that they were not under imminent threat from some kind of Hollywood-style network worm did not mean they were immune from more realistic attack vectors.

Likewise, one can quite reasonably say there is no credible existential, Hollywood-style threat from AI in the foreseeable future while recognizing far lower-stakes, yet important risks that need to be addressed.

reply
upvoteby jacobgold4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
If you think AI will be powerful enough to change the world in huge ways, then it does seem reasonable to assume some level of risk of destroying the world too.

Stating that the probability is zero when we simply don't know what the probabilities are does seem like an extraordinary claim.

Imagine how reassuring it would be to people if we had evidence that there's no existential risk?

reply
upvoteby thin_carapace4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
the earth has been 1 decision away from explosion for nearly a hundred years now. do you anticipate a change to this agenda very soon? personally I imagine the same trajectory continuing.
reply
upvoteby goatlover3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
As bad as it would be, it's unlikely that a full scale nuclear war kills all humans across the planet.
reply
upvoteby Jtsummers3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And a full scale nuclear war would require a few more than just one decision. So far, we've never been one decision away from annihilation.
reply
upvoteby thin_carapace3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
certainly I behave like the article's author and yourself all the time, this isn't meant to be some sort of moral point. watching all these smart people talk so confidently regarding things nobody knows about, it reminds of the confidence ai shows in hallucination. would you say that the singular choice of vasili arkhipov did not prevent annihilation?
reply
upvoteby Jtsummers3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> would you say that the singular choice of vasili arkhipov did not prevent annihilation?

He prevented a catastrophe, but not annihilation. We were not at risk of that in 1962 and even if he had decided to go with the others, more decisions would have been needed (not just his) to fully escalate to full scale nuclear war. I will reiterate: We have never been one decision away from full scale nuclear war.

But in case you don't understand why, it's because no one person can actually launch all the missiles. And considering the two major arsenals (US and USSR), there has never been a time when two people could make the same decision (launch) and actually launch all the missiles. The orders still have to go out and acted on, many decisions have to be made in order to have full scale nuclear war and come close to annihilation.

reply
upvoteby thin_carapace2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I like the way you frame your opinion as a truth with an obligation to be understood. still I disagree that a decision can only be said to affect its direct successors.
reply
upvoteby abletonlive4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No it does not seem like an extraordinary claim, unless this is your first time hearing such claims. For the rest of us, we've heard this every decade and it turns out to be entirely untrue.

Nuclear, Overpopulation, Peak Oil, Y2K Bug, Global Warming.

No, we aren't going extinct in the next 10 years.

reply