Seconded. On my end I feel like I see two different kinds of people who frustrate me in AI risk conversations:
People who deny the risk exists at all. Since doom is ~zero probability, there’s no reason to do anything at all about it, and we can get upset at anyone who talks about it for focusing on sci-fi nonsense and distracting from [whatever minor AI effect happens to annoy them].
People who claim that the risk is so great, and doom so certain absent drastic action, that the question of whether the stuff they are doing is stupid and counterproductive is irrelevant. Since doom is ~certain, there’s no way their genius plan could make things worse—the default state is guaranteed extinction, and literally anything is an improvement!
And I feel like P(doom) does a good job of capturing the thing I care about, even if it misses nuances.
Seconded. On my end I feel like I see two different kinds of people who frustrate me in AI risk conversations:
People who deny the risk exists at all. Since doom is ~zero probability, there’s no reason to do anything at all about it, and we can get upset at anyone who talks about it for focusing on sci-fi nonsense and distracting from [whatever minor AI effect happens to annoy them].
People who claim that the risk is so great, and doom so certain absent drastic action, that the question of whether the stuff they are doing is stupid and counterproductive is irrelevant. Since doom is ~certain, there’s no way their genius plan could make things worse—the default state is guaranteed extinction, and literally anything is an improvement!
And I feel like P(doom) does a good job of capturing the thing I care about, even if it misses nuances.