> If we were to put a number on how likely extinction is in the absence of an aggressive near-term policy response, MIRI’s research leadership would give one upward of 90%.
This is what I interpreted as implying p(doom) > 90%, but it’s clearly a misreading to assume that someone advocating for “an aggressive near-term policy response” believes that it has a ~0% chance of happening.
I am in camp 2, but will try to refine my argument more before writing it down.
I was pushing back on ‘p(doom)’ as an ambiguous construction that different people bake different conditionals into, and attempting to protect against people ripping things out of context if they hadn’t even seen the line you were referencing.
> If we were to put a number on how likely extinction is in the absence of an aggressive near-term policy response, MIRI’s research leadership would give one upward of 90%.
This is what I interpreted as implying p(doom) > 90%, but it’s clearly a misreading to assume that someone advocating for “an aggressive near-term policy response” believes that it has a ~0% chance of happening.
I am in camp 2, but will try to refine my argument more before writing it down.
I was pushing back on ‘p(doom)’ as an ambiguous construction that different people bake different conditionals into, and attempting to protect against people ripping things out of context if they hadn’t even seen the line you were referencing.
Oh yeah, I also find that annoying.