Okay that’s good to know. I’ve mostly encountered the argument as a reply to individuals worrying that they’re getting Pascal’s-mugged into working on AI safety. In that sort of case,
AI safety can’t be a Pascal’s mugging because p(doom) is high
is invalid, and the premise needed to make it valid --
If p(doom) is high, then p(you can avert doom) is high
-- is way too doubtful to leave implicit.
But if the argument is a reply to people worried that the world/US government is getting Pascal’s-mugged into working on AI safety, then the premise needed to make it valid is
If p(doom) is high, then p(the world/USG can avert doom) is high
and I agree that premise is safe/uncontroversial enough to leave implicit.
Okay that’s good to know. I’ve mostly encountered the argument as a reply to individuals worrying that they’re getting Pascal’s-mugged into working on AI safety. In that sort of case,
is invalid, and the premise needed to make it valid --
-- is way too doubtful to leave implicit.
But if the argument is a reply to people worried that the world/US government is getting Pascal’s-mugged into working on AI safety, then the premise needed to make it valid is
and I agree that premise is safe/uncontroversial enough to leave implicit.