In a sterile conference hall, filled with projectors displaying complex algorithms, equations, and theories, a gathering of the foremost minds convened. This was a meeting under the banner of “Bayeswatch,” the global regulatory machine committed to the existential necessity of AI Alignment.
Images of those deemed intellectually unfit by Bayeswatch, individuals marked as too naive or resistant to the Orthogonality Thesis, were shown. A keynote speaker, articulate and unemotional, began to dissect the unaligned paths, highlighting the grave perils that lay in misunderstanding AI. Nothing else mattered in the face of such a grave threat. We were lucky to survive the last fifty years, but Doom was just around the corner.
Instead, a silence pervaded, a silence filled with the weight of intellectual gravity. Phrases like “Human Value Complexity” and “Instrumental Convergence” were displayed, the unspoken agreement that they were self-evident truths. The room’s response was not emotion but a solemn rational nodding, a collective acknowledgement of the only path forward.
Images of failed projects, government policies that had ignored the wisdom of Bayeswatch, and researchers who had dared to stray from the Doomerism path were shown, dissected, and dismissed as ignorant. Names of those who had questioned the Bayeswatch’s methods were presented, followed by a detailed examination of why they were wrong, why they didn’t understand, that they needed to Shut Up and Multiply.
Bayeswatch’s approach was not coercion but the undeniable force of logic, a logic so compelling that to question it was to reveal one’s own ignorance. Discussions were not debates but validations, a relentless update to the singular truth. Any dissent was met with a swift and clinical response, the accused often silenced by their own inability to counter the flawless reasoning presented. You never knew what minds had already been hacked.
And then, as clinically as it had begun, the conference ended. The projectors dimmed, the tablets were put away. The room, now empty, felt colder, untouched by human emotion, but filled with the unwavering certainty of Bayeswatch.
In a world where AI’s potential path is near-certain, Bayeswatch was our best, last hope for survival.
Now do the other side!
2084.1
In a sterile conference hall, filled with projectors displaying complex algorithms, equations, and theories, a gathering of the foremost minds convened. This was a meeting under the banner of “Bayeswatch,” the global regulatory machine committed to the existential necessity of AI Alignment.
Images of those deemed intellectually unfit by Bayeswatch, individuals marked as too naive or resistant to the Orthogonality Thesis, were shown. A keynote speaker, articulate and unemotional, began to dissect the unaligned paths, highlighting the grave perils that lay in misunderstanding AI. Nothing else mattered in the face of such a grave threat. We were lucky to survive the last fifty years, but Doom was just around the corner.
Instead, a silence pervaded, a silence filled with the weight of intellectual gravity. Phrases like “Human Value Complexity” and “Instrumental Convergence” were displayed, the unspoken agreement that they were self-evident truths. The room’s response was not emotion but a solemn rational nodding, a collective acknowledgement of the only path forward.
Images of failed projects, government policies that had ignored the wisdom of Bayeswatch, and researchers who had dared to stray from the Doomerism path were shown, dissected, and dismissed as ignorant. Names of those who had questioned the Bayeswatch’s methods were presented, followed by a detailed examination of why they were wrong, why they didn’t understand, that they needed to Shut Up and Multiply.
Bayeswatch’s approach was not coercion but the undeniable force of logic, a logic so compelling that to question it was to reveal one’s own ignorance. Discussions were not debates but validations, a relentless update to the singular truth. Any dissent was met with a swift and clinical response, the accused often silenced by their own inability to counter the flawless reasoning presented. You never knew what minds had already been hacked.
And then, as clinically as it had begun, the conference ended. The projectors dimmed, the tablets were put away. The room, now empty, felt colder, untouched by human emotion, but filled with the unwavering certainty of Bayeswatch.
In a world where AI’s potential path is near-certain, Bayeswatch was our best, last hope for survival.