Of course you can be worried about multiple things.
If he has 25% on (unconditional) x-risk, whatever share of that is derived from worlds in which we die from “misuse” is therefore not derived worlds in which we die from misalignment. I guess it’s possible that he could be modeling 100% of misuse worlds as also dying to misalignment later in their timelines, so “necessarily” was wrong, but in practice...
Here is a metaphor; I can’t tell if this is insightful to anyone else: if one is worried about defeating Orcs and Ogres, the objective is not to bet on which of them is more dangerous; the objective is to simultaneously beat Orcs and Ogres.
Weird frame. I can worry about more than one thing. Admittedly a lot of others can’t.
Of course you can be worried about multiple things.
If he has 25% on (unconditional) x-risk, whatever share of that is derived from worlds in which we die from “misuse” is therefore not derived worlds in which we die from misalignment. I guess it’s possible that he could be modeling 100% of misuse worlds as also dying to misalignment later in their timelines, so “necessarily” was wrong, but in practice...
Oh, I see the confusion. (My fault for finishing this post at 11 pm.)
I think that bullet point requires the same disclaimer as the third bullet point. Might edit that in the morning.
Here is a metaphor; I can’t tell if this is insightful to anyone else: if one is worried about defeating Orcs and Ogres, the objective is not to bet on which of them is more dangerous; the objective is to simultaneously beat Orcs and Ogres.