The OP’s author didn’t claim that the list of twelve sources is EXHAUSTIVE. What the OP claims is that one needs to do a broader search of possible evils.[1] In addition, if we’d like to have a 50% probability that among the 12 sources there is an actual evil, and the sources were independent, then we would need to have an average probability of 94-96%, not even 90%.
My take is that ideas like outsourcing most economically useful work to the AIs are themselves evil, since they allow disempowerment or degradation of humans’ psyches.
What I said had nothing to do with the specific number 12, except that that’s what the original post used. My point was that you can’t make a list of a lot of evils (regardless of the exact number) and assign percentages and multiply them together. When asked to assign percentages for unlikely events, people assign them in a logically inconsistent way. The entire argument consists of abusing this inconsistency in order to make the chance of evil look high.
The OP’s author didn’t claim that the list of twelve sources is EXHAUSTIVE. What the OP claims is that one needs to do a broader search of possible evils.[1] In addition, if we’d like to have a 50% probability that among the 12 sources there is an actual evil, and the sources were independent, then we would need to have an average probability of 94-96%, not even 90%.
My take is that ideas like outsourcing most economically useful work to the AIs are themselves evil, since they allow disempowerment or degradation of humans’ psyches.
What I said had nothing to do with the specific number 12, except that that’s what the original post used. My point was that you can’t make a list of a lot of evils (regardless of the exact number) and assign percentages and multiply them together. When asked to assign percentages for unlikely events, people assign them in a logically inconsistent way. The entire argument consists of abusing this inconsistency in order to make the chance of evil look high.