I do agree that the history of crucial considerations provides a good reason to favour ‘deep understanding’.
I also agree that you plausibly need a much deeper understanding to get to above 90% on P(doom). But I don’t think you need that to get to the action-relevant thresholds, which are much lower.
I’d be interested in learning more about your power grab threat models, so let me know if and when you have something you want to share. And TBC I think you’re right that in many scenarios it will not be clear to other people whether the entity seeking power is ultimately humans or AIs—my current view is that the two possibilities are distinct, and it is plausible that just one of them obtains pretty cleanly.
Thanks for this!
I do agree that the history of crucial considerations provides a good reason to favour ‘deep understanding’.
I also agree that you plausibly need a much deeper understanding to get to above 90% on P(doom). But I don’t think you need that to get to the action-relevant thresholds, which are much lower.
I’d be interested in learning more about your power grab threat models, so let me know if and when you have something you want to share. And TBC I think you’re right that in many scenarios it will not be clear to other people whether the entity seeking power is ultimately humans or AIs—my current view is that the two possibilities are distinct, and it is plausible that just one of them obtains pretty cleanly.