OK, thanks, that’s the half I didn’t read. I should finish.
The specific points you mention seem reasonable to me, not saying I agree with them but they seem like they could be right.
Re: flattering Vance and Trump: I think a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that AI 2027 depicts competent government action. On the contrary even in the slowdown ending to a large extent (and definitely in the race ending) it depicts an incompetent, bumbling government being captured and bowled over by corporate lobbyists and CEOs. At least that’s our opinion as authors, sorry that that didn’t come through in the text...
Re: normalcy: that’s another critique that I resonate with. In truth the arrival of superintelligence is probably going to be INSANE and CRAZY and WORLDSHAKING in a bunch of ways that we haven’t yet imagined, but, alas, precisely because we haven’t yet imagined them, we couldn’t put them in AI 2027. But maybe we should have done more to emphasize that there will likely be lots of black swans / curveballs / etc. that overall make the post-ASI situation feel even less normal than AI 2027 describes.
Also, like you said, this critic did actually read the whole thing carefully while attempting to keep track of state and coherence, which is commendable and valuable and rare.
I really, really wish that other people would try their hand at writing their own scenario forecasts. I wish I had emphasized that more. If critics had alternative scenarios, then we could make more apples-to-apples comparisons. Besides, I genuinely think it’s a really helpful thinking tool and basically everyone should do it at least once every few years.
Regarding the bumbling, I agree you depict some capture and incompetence but also the executive branch has a degree of foresight that seems implausible to me. I am so angry about the stupidity of the tariffs against my country, however, that possibly this is clouding my judgement.
It looks like SE Gyges’ response is actually based on a series of misunderstandings. I have prepared a draft response similar to your coverage of Vitalik’s post. If you wish, I may publish it or send via a private message.
Thanks! I am sick today and probably won’t get to this till next week, so I encourage you to just post the response as your own opinion rather than as something I’ve endorsed. But I imagine I’d agree with most of it, since I disagree with most of SE Gyges’ critiques.
OK, thanks, that’s the half I didn’t read. I should finish.
The specific points you mention seem reasonable to me, not saying I agree with them but they seem like they could be right.
Re: flattering Vance and Trump: I think a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that AI 2027 depicts competent government action. On the contrary even in the slowdown ending to a large extent (and definitely in the race ending) it depicts an incompetent, bumbling government being captured and bowled over by corporate lobbyists and CEOs. At least that’s our opinion as authors, sorry that that didn’t come through in the text...
Re: normalcy: that’s another critique that I resonate with. In truth the arrival of superintelligence is probably going to be INSANE and CRAZY and WORLDSHAKING in a bunch of ways that we haven’t yet imagined, but, alas, precisely because we haven’t yet imagined them, we couldn’t put them in AI 2027. But maybe we should have done more to emphasize that there will likely be lots of black swans / curveballs / etc. that overall make the post-ASI situation feel even less normal than AI 2027 describes.
Also, like you said, this critic did actually read the whole thing carefully while attempting to keep track of state and coherence, which is commendable and valuable and rare.
I really, really wish that other people would try their hand at writing their own scenario forecasts. I wish I had emphasized that more. If critics had alternative scenarios, then we could make more apples-to-apples comparisons. Besides, I genuinely think it’s a really helpful thinking tool and basically everyone should do it at least once every few years.
Regarding the bumbling, I agree you depict some capture and incompetence but also the executive branch has a degree of foresight that seems implausible to me. I am so angry about the stupidity of the tariffs against my country, however, that possibly this is clouding my judgement.
It looks like SE Gyges’ response is actually based on a series of misunderstandings. I have prepared a draft response similar to your coverage of Vitalik’s post. If you wish, I may publish it or send via a private message.
UPD: SE Gyges’ response to AI-2027 — LessWrong
Thanks! I am sick today and probably won’t get to this till next week, so I encourage you to just post the response as your own opinion rather than as something I’ve endorsed. But I imagine I’d agree with most of it, since I disagree with most of SE Gyges’ critiques.