Another example: an AI risk skeptic might say that there is only a 10% chance ASI will emerge this decade, there is only a 1% chance the ASI will want to take over the world, and there is only a 1% chance it’ll be able to take over the world. Therefore, there is only a 0.001% chance of AI risk this decade.
However he can’t just multiply these probabilities since there is actually a very high correlation between them. Within the “territory,” these outcomes do not correlate with each other that much, but within the “map,” his probability estimates are likely to be wrong in the same direction.
Since chance is in the map and not the territory, anything can “correlate” with anything.
PS: I think not all uncertainty is in the map rather than the territory. In indexical uncertainty, one copy of you will discover one outcome and another copy of you will discover another outcome. This actually is a feature of the territory.
Another example: an AI risk skeptic might say that there is only a 10% chance ASI will emerge this decade, there is only a 1% chance the ASI will want to take over the world, and there is only a 1% chance it’ll be able to take over the world. Therefore, there is only a 0.001% chance of AI risk this decade.
However he can’t just multiply these probabilities since there is actually a very high correlation between them. Within the “territory,” these outcomes do not correlate with each other that much, but within the “map,” his probability estimates are likely to be wrong in the same direction.
Since chance is in the map and not the territory, anything can “correlate” with anything.
PS: I think not all uncertainty is in the map rather than the territory. In indexical uncertainty, one copy of you will discover one outcome and another copy of you will discover another outcome. This actually is a feature of the territory.