Feels true to me, but what’s the distinction between theoretical and non-theoretical arguments?
Consider the mythological case of the calculation if the atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere. I guess the concern guided the “policy” to perform the calculation. And if it came out as 50% of omnicide, atomic bombs would be prevented, despite the lack of a spectacular warning shot.
Feels true to me, but what’s the distinction between theoretical and non-theoretical arguments?
Having decent grounding for the theory at hand would be a start. To take the ignition of the atmosphere example, they did have a solid enough grasp of the underlying physics, with validated equations to plug numbers into. Another example would be global warming, where even though nobody has great equations, the big picture is pretty clear, and there were periods when the Earth was much hotter in the past (but still supported rich ecosystems, which is why most people don’t take the “existential risk” part seriously).
Whereas, even the notion of “intelligence” remains very vague, straight out of philosophy’s domain, let alone concepts like “ASI”, so pretty much all argumentation relies on analogies and intuitions, also prime philosophy stuff.
I mean, sure, all sorts of random nonsense can sway national policy from time to time, but strictly-ish enforced global bans are in an entirely different league.
Maybe the problem with AI existential risk arguments is that they’re not very convincing.
Feels true to me, but what’s the distinction between theoretical and non-theoretical arguments?
Consider the mythological case of the calculation if the atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere. I guess the concern guided the “policy” to perform the calculation. And if it came out as 50% of omnicide, atomic bombs would be prevented, despite the lack of a spectacular warning shot.
Policy has also ever been guided by arguments with little related maths, for example, the MAKING FEDERAL ARCHITECTURE BEAUTIFUL AGAIN executive order.
Maybe the problem with AI existential risk arguments is that they’re not very convincing.
Having decent grounding for the theory at hand would be a start. To take the ignition of the atmosphere example, they did have a solid enough grasp of the underlying physics, with validated equations to plug numbers into. Another example would be global warming, where even though nobody has great equations, the big picture is pretty clear, and there were periods when the Earth was much hotter in the past (but still supported rich ecosystems, which is why most people don’t take the “existential risk” part seriously).
Whereas, even the notion of “intelligence” remains very vague, straight out of philosophy’s domain, let alone concepts like “ASI”, so pretty much all argumentation relies on analogies and intuitions, also prime philosophy stuff.
I mean, sure, all sorts of random nonsense can sway national policy from time to time, but strictly-ish enforced global bans are in an entirely different league.
Indeed, and I’m proposing an explanation why.