There are two views I’m aware of that make people that confident in not-”doom”: they are either convinced that ASI’s creation will almost certainly have desirable consequences (i.e. the e/accs) or they discount the possibility of ASI in general. I think the first group is obviously overconfident and the second-group is still overconfident but not trivially so.
Specifically, the consensus of the latter group is that LLMs are not a viable path to ASI because, outside of specific areas like math and programming where correct answers can be verified, they can’t exceed the capabilities of a skilled human; that no other technology is likely to reach that point either (in part because a long AI winter would follow the failure of LLMs to take off); and that recursive self-improvement, if it is possible, would lead to diminishing returns. They do not seem all that confident in the benevolence of ASI if it were created.
I also think everyone is insane, but some people are still more insane than others.
There are two views I’m aware of that make people that confident in not-”doom”: they are either convinced that ASI’s creation will almost certainly have desirable consequences (i.e. the e/accs) or they discount the possibility of ASI in general. I think the first group is obviously overconfident and the second-group is still overconfident but not trivially so.
Specifically, the consensus of the latter group is that LLMs are not a viable path to ASI because, outside of specific areas like math and programming where correct answers can be verified, they can’t exceed the capabilities of a skilled human; that no other technology is likely to reach that point either (in part because a long AI winter would follow the failure of LLMs to take off); and that recursive self-improvement, if it is possible, would lead to diminishing returns. They do not seem all that confident in the benevolence of ASI if it were created.
I also think everyone is insane, but some people are still more insane than others.