50% is pure incertitude. 95% (for Yudkowsky) is close to pure certitude. So, “all the agreement they have” seems kind of an overstatement.
Besides, even if they were in total agreement on the p(doom), it would definitely be a good thing to avoid the echo chamber effect and that the interviewer makes himself the advocate of other major figures of the debate, challenging Yudkowsky’s position. Not all along the interview, but more than we see here. It seems all the more necessary since Yudkowsky appears, maybe not isolated but at least on a border of the spectrum. My feeling is that an intellectually honest rationalist cannot ignore these considerations.
(although in my defense, you didn’t make that argument in the comment I responded to, and also, liron assigning 50% doesn’t mean he actually disagrees with Yudkowsky. It might be he’s just not sure, but doesn’t have any counterarguments per se).
50% is pure incertitude. 95% (for Yudkowsky) is close to pure certitude. So, “all the agreement they have” seems kind of an overstatement.
Besides, even if they were in total agreement on the p(doom), it would definitely be a good thing to avoid the echo chamber effect and that the interviewer makes himself the advocate of other major figures of the debate, challenging Yudkowsky’s position. Not all along the interview, but more than we see here. It seems all the more necessary since Yudkowsky appears, maybe not isolated but at least on a border of the spectrum. My feeling is that an intellectually honest rationalist cannot ignore these considerations.
Fair point, I’ve downvoted my comment. Apologies.
(although in my defense, you didn’t make that argument in the comment I responded to, and also, liron assigning 50% doesn’t mean he actually disagrees with Yudkowsky. It might be he’s just not sure, but doesn’t have any counterarguments per se).
I agree I should have pointed it out in the initial comment !