The arguments for are pretty bad upon closer scrutiny,
but don’t post the detailed results of your scrutiny or the refutations of those arguments.
Playing the burden of proof game won’t help you at all. If you want to convince people of AI risks then you have to improve your arguments if they tell you that your current arguments are unconvincing. It is not the obligation of those who are not convinced to refute your bad arguments (which might not even be possible if they are vague enough).
It’s true that he has no responsibility per se to tell us what’s wrong with our arguments, but I can still ask him without claiming he has the burden of proof. I’m willing to accept the burden of proof, and “That’s not enough evidence, I’m not convinced” is a valid response, but if he has any specific reasons beyond that I want to know them.
In general I agree with this but he specifically mentions equally good arguments for the opposing view, without describing or linking to them. If I say “that’s a bad argument, you’ll have to do better to convince me” That’s one thing but it’s quite another when I say “That’s a bad argument because of what x said” and then not say what x said.
Playing the burden of proof game won’t help you at all. If you want to convince people of AI risks then you have to improve your arguments if they tell you that your current arguments are unconvincing.
Indeed. I’m wondering how many people complaining of the tone of this post have previously declared Crocker’s Rules.
Playing the burden of proof game won’t help you at all. If you want to convince people of AI risks then you have to improve your arguments if they tell you that your current arguments are unconvincing. It is not the obligation of those who are not convinced to refute your bad arguments (which might not even be possible if they are vague enough).
It’s true that he has no responsibility per se to tell us what’s wrong with our arguments, but I can still ask him without claiming he has the burden of proof. I’m willing to accept the burden of proof, and “That’s not enough evidence, I’m not convinced” is a valid response, but if he has any specific reasons beyond that I want to know them.
In general I agree with this but he specifically mentions equally good arguments for the opposing view, without describing or linking to them. If I say “that’s a bad argument, you’ll have to do better to convince me” That’s one thing but it’s quite another when I say “That’s a bad argument because of what x said” and then not say what x said.
Indeed. I’m wondering how many people complaining of the tone of this post have previously declared Crocker’s Rules.