Well, overconfident/underconfident is always only meaningful relative to some baseline, so if you strongly think (say) 0.001% is the right level of confidence, then 1% is high relative to that.
The various numbers I’ve stated during this debate are 60%, 50%, and 30%, so none of them are high by your meaning. Does that really mean you aren’t arguing against my positions? (This was not my previous impression.)
I think 60% by 2030 is too high, and I am arguing against numbers like that. There’s some ambiguity about drawing the lines because high numbers on very short timelines are of course strictly less plausible than high numbers on merely short timelines, so there isn’t necessarily one best number to compare.
On reflection, I don’t like the phrase “high confidence” for <50% and preferably not even for <75%. Something like “high credence” seems more appropriate—though one can certainly have higher or lower confidence, it is not clear communication to say you are highly confident of something which you believe at little better than even odds. Even if you were buying a lottery ticket with the special knowledge that you had picked one of three possible winning numbers, you still wouldn’t say you were highly confident that ticket would win—even though we would no longer be confident of losing!
Anyway, I haven’t necessarily been consistent / explicit about this throughout the conversation.
High confidence means at least over 75%
Short timelines means, say, less than 10 years, though at this point I think the very short timeline picture means “around 2030”
I don’t know how anyone could reasonably refer to 1% confidence as high.
Well, overconfident/underconfident is always only meaningful relative to some baseline, so if you strongly think (say) 0.001% is the right level of confidence, then 1% is high relative to that.
The various numbers I’ve stated during this debate are 60%, 50%, and 30%, so none of them are high by your meaning. Does that really mean you aren’t arguing against my positions? (This was not my previous impression.)
I think 60% by 2030 is too high, and I am arguing against numbers like that. There’s some ambiguity about drawing the lines because high numbers on very short timelines are of course strictly less plausible than high numbers on merely short timelines, so there isn’t necessarily one best number to compare.
On reflection, I don’t like the phrase “high confidence” for <50% and preferably not even for <75%. Something like “high credence” seems more appropriate—though one can certainly have higher or lower confidence, it is not clear communication to say you are highly confident of something which you believe at little better than even odds. Even if you were buying a lottery ticket with the special knowledge that you had picked one of three possible winning numbers, you still wouldn’t say you were highly confident that ticket would win—even though we would no longer be confident of losing!
Anyway, I haven’t necessarily been consistent / explicit about this throughout the conversation.