upvote

points

by cowthulhu2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby timr2 hours ago|
next
[-]
No. The person making the improbable argument is required to provide an affirmative case for that argument.

It's not my job to make the argument for them.

For what it's worth, I have done your suggested exercise, and I find every causal link (including the ones brought up by luminaries like Amodei) to be outrageous and poorly argued. But it's not my job expend effort to make their outrageous arguments better.

reply
upvoteby cowthulhu2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not making an affirmative case - I'm looking for others to introspect about this, and anchor their expectations.

If we have a bioweapon close call, would you consider AI an existential risk at that point? If not, how close would we need to get?

You don't need to answer here, or disclose anything publicly - just think and remember.

reply
upvoteby dullcrisp1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I don’t really understand this exercise of predicting what I’ll be thinking in the future.
reply
upvoteby cowthulhu1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
To avoid shifting goalposts
reply
upvoteby dullcrisp1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There are no goalposts. No one is trying to score points except you.
reply
upvoteby cowthulhu1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think I'm coming across as confrontational, which is genuinely not my intention - sorry about that. Not trying to score points or anything, just encourage people to introspect a bit :)

I think your viewpoint is totally valid, and I'm not trying to argue against it.

reply
upvoteby dullcrisp1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not confrontational, but proselytizing.
reply
upvoteby cowthulhu1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Is there truly nothing an AI system could do (no matter how outlandish it seems today) that would give you pause?
reply
upvoteby dullcrisp1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes, just like that. What would it take for you to accept Our Lord into your heart?
reply
upvoteby cowthulhu1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The bar is high, but there's probably some combination of events (combined with a high confidence in my own lucidity over an extended period of time) that would convince me.
reply
upvoteby dullcrisp1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Same same.
reply
upvoteby emil-lp38 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> If we have a bioweapon close call, would you consider AI an existential risk at that point? If not, how close would we need to get?

The thing is, this doesn't really mean anything.

What is a bioweapon close call? What is the process in which a bioweapon close call happens? An AI that hacks all cell phones to emitt anthrax?

reply
upvoteby dullcrisp2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
No. Why? If you want to convince people something is true you need to actually convince them it’s true. They don’t need to justify not believing you.
reply
upvoteby cowthulhu2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not asking for justification, just for people to introspect about what, if anything, it would take for them to consider AI a serious threat. No justification needed, and really no need to post it here, just think about it and remember it in the future.
reply
upvoteby halostatue34 minutes ago|
prev|
[-]
At this point, the most likely scenario for AI producing a serious existential risk is making us all want to bash our heads in because of "the honest options" and other claude-isms.
reply
upvoteby 20 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply