Correlations among AGI doomer predictions could reveal common AI Safety milestones
I am curious about how considerations of overlaps could lead to a list of milestones for positive results in AI safety research. If there are enough exit points from pathways to AI doom available through AI Safety improvements, a catalog of those improvements might be visible in models of correlations among AI Safety researcher’s predictions about AGI doom of various sorts.
But as a sidenote, here’s my response to your mention of climate researchers thinking in terms of P(Doom).
Commonalities among climate scientists that are pessimistic about climate change and geo-engineering
Doubts held by pessimistic climate scientists about future climate plausibly include:
countries meeting climate commitments (they haven’t so far and won’t in future).
tipping elements (e.g., Amazon) remaining stable this century (several are projected to tip this century).
climate models having resolution and completeness sufficient for atmospheric geo-engineering (none do).
politics of geo-engineering staying amiable (plausibly not if undesirable weather effects occur).
GAST < 1.5C this century (GAST is predicted to rise higher this century).
Common traits among more vocal climate scientists forecasting climate destruction could include:
applying the precautionary principle.
rejecting some economic models of climate change impacts.
liking the idea of geo-engineering with marine cloud brightening in the Arctic.
disliking atmospheric aerosol injection over individual countries.
agreeing with (hypothetical) DACCS or BECCS that is timely and scales well.
worrying about irreversible tipping element changes such as sea level rise from Greenland ice melt.
NOTE: I see that commonality through my own browsing of literature and observations of trends among vocal climate scientists, but my list is not the result of any representative survey.
Climate scientist concern over a climate emergency contrasts with prediction of pending catastrophe
There’s 13,000 scientist signatories on a statement of a climate emergency, I think that shows concern (if not pessimism) from a vocal group of scientists about our current situation.
However, if climate scientists are asked to forecast P(Doom), the forecasts will vary depending on what scientists think:
that countries and people will actually do as time goes on.
is the amount of time available to limit GHG production.
are the economic and societal changes suitable vs pending as climate change effects grow.
is the amount of time required to implement effective geo-engineering.
is the technological response suitable to prevent, adapt to, or mitigate climate change consequences.
A different question is how climate scientists might backcast not_Doom or P(Doom) < low_value. A comparison of the scenarios they describe could show interesting differences in worldview.
Correlations among AGI doomer predictions could reveal common AI Safety milestones
I am curious about how considerations of overlaps could lead to a list of milestones for positive results in AI safety research. If there are enough exit points from pathways to AI doom available through AI Safety improvements, a catalog of those improvements might be visible in models of correlations among AI Safety researcher’s predictions about AGI doom of various sorts.
But as a sidenote, here’s my response to your mention of climate researchers thinking in terms of P(Doom).
Commonalities among climate scientists that are pessimistic about climate change and geo-engineering
Doubts held by pessimistic climate scientists about future climate plausibly include:
countries meeting climate commitments (they haven’t so far and won’t in future).
tipping elements (e.g., Amazon) remaining stable this century (several are projected to tip this century).
climate models having resolution and completeness sufficient for atmospheric geo-engineering (none do).
politics of geo-engineering staying amiable (plausibly not if undesirable weather effects occur).
GAST < 1.5C this century (GAST is predicted to rise higher this century).
Common traits among more vocal climate scientists forecasting climate destruction could include:
applying the precautionary principle.
rejecting some economic models of climate change impacts.
liking the idea of geo-engineering with marine cloud brightening in the Arctic.
disliking atmospheric aerosol injection over individual countries.
agreeing with (hypothetical) DACCS or BECCS that is timely and scales well.
worrying about irreversible tipping element changes such as sea level rise from Greenland ice melt.
NOTE: I see that commonality through my own browsing of literature and observations of trends among vocal climate scientists, but my list is not the result of any representative survey.
Climate scientist concern over a climate emergency contrasts with prediction of pending catastrophe
There’s 13,000 scientist signatories on a statement of a climate emergency, I think that shows concern (if not pessimism) from a vocal group of scientists about our current situation.
However, if climate scientists are asked to forecast P(Doom), the forecasts will vary depending on what scientists think:
that countries and people will actually do as time goes on.
is the amount of time available to limit GHG production.
are the economic and societal changes suitable vs pending as climate change effects grow.
is the amount of time required to implement effective geo-engineering.
is the technological response suitable to prevent, adapt to, or mitigate climate change consequences.
A different question is how climate scientists might backcast not_Doom or P(Doom) < low_value. A comparison of the scenarios they describe could show interesting differences in worldview.