I highly doubt it is explanatory for the field and the associated risk predictions to exist in the first place, or that its validity should be questioned on such grounds, but this seems to happen in the article if I’m not entirely misreading it.
Not entirely. It’s a bit of a misreading. In this case I think the bit matters though.
(And it’s an understandable bit! It’s a subtle point I find I have a hard time communicating clearly.)
I’m trying to say two things:
There sure do seem to be some bad psychological influences going on.
It’s harder to tell what’s real when you have sufficiently bad psychological influences going on.
I think some people, such as you, are reacting really strongly to that second point. Like I’m taking a stand for AI risk being a non-issue and saying it’s all psychological projection.
I’m saying that nonzero, but close to zero. It’s a more plausible hypothesis to me than I think it is to this community. But that’s not because I’m going through the arguments that AI risk is real and finding refutations. It’s because I’ve seen some shockingly basic things turn out to be psychological projection, and I don’t think Less Wrong collectively understands that projection really can be that deep. I just don’t see it accounted for in the arguments for doom.
But that’s not the central point I’m trying to make. My point is more that I think the probability of doom is significantly elevated as a result of how memetic evolution works — and, stupidly, I think that makes doom more likely as a result of the “Don’t hit the tree” phenomenon.
And maybe even more centrally, you cannot know how elevated the probability is until you seriously check for memetic probability boosters. And even then, how you check needs to account for those memetic influences.
I’m not trying to say that AI safety shouldn’t exist as a field though.
From my point of view, there is already an overemphasis on psychological factors in the broader debate and it would be desirable to get back to the object level
Wow, you and I sure must be seeing different parts of the debate! I approximately only hear people talking about the object level. That’s part of my concern.
I mean, I see some folk doing hot takes on Twitter about psychological angles. But most of those strike me as more like pot shots and less like attempts to engage in a dialogue.
Not entirely. It’s a bit of a misreading. In this case I think the bit matters though.
(And it’s an understandable bit! It’s a subtle point I find I have a hard time communicating clearly.)
I’m trying to say two things:
There sure do seem to be some bad psychological influences going on.
It’s harder to tell what’s real when you have sufficiently bad psychological influences going on.
I think some people, such as you, are reacting really strongly to that second point. Like I’m taking a stand for AI risk being a non-issue and saying it’s all psychological projection.
I’m saying that nonzero, but close to zero. It’s a more plausible hypothesis to me than I think it is to this community. But that’s not because I’m going through the arguments that AI risk is real and finding refutations. It’s because I’ve seen some shockingly basic things turn out to be psychological projection, and I don’t think Less Wrong collectively understands that projection really can be that deep. I just don’t see it accounted for in the arguments for doom.
But that’s not the central point I’m trying to make. My point is more that I think the probability of doom is significantly elevated as a result of how memetic evolution works — and, stupidly, I think that makes doom more likely as a result of the “Don’t hit the tree” phenomenon.
And maybe even more centrally, you cannot know how elevated the probability is until you seriously check for memetic probability boosters. And even then, how you check needs to account for those memetic influences.
I’m not trying to say that AI safety shouldn’t exist as a field though.
Wow, you and I sure must be seeing different parts of the debate! I approximately only hear people talking about the object level. That’s part of my concern.
I mean, I see some folk doing hot takes on Twitter about psychological angles. But most of those strike me as more like pot shots and less like attempts to engage in a dialogue.