It seems like maybe part of the issue is that you hear Nate and Eliezer as saying “here is the argument for why it’s obvious that ASI will kill us all” and I hear them as saying “here is the argument for why ASI will kill us all” and so you’re docking them points when they fail to reach the high standard of “this is a watertight and irrefutable proof” and I’m not?
fwiw I think Eliezer/Nate are saying “it’s obvious, unless we were to learn new surprising information” and deliberately not saying “it has a watertight proof”, and part of the disagreement here is “have they risen the standard of ’fairly obvious call, unless we learn new surprising information?”
(with the added wrinkle of many people incorrectly thinking LLM era observations count as new information that changes the call)
fwiw I think Eliezer/Nate are saying “it’s obvious, unless we were to learn new surprising information” and deliberately not saying “it has a watertight proof”, and part of the disagreement here is “have they risen the standard of ’fairly obvious call, unless we learn new surprising information?”
(with the added wrinkle of many people incorrectly thinking LLM era observations count as new information that changes the call)