(This is a quick take—don’t take it that seriously if I don’t articulate other people’s views accurately here)
Just listened to a few more episodes of Doom Debates. Something that stands out is that the predictions from the Liron-esque worldview have been consistently overweighted towards doom so far. So, Liron will say things along the lines of ‘GPT3 could have been doom, we didn’t know either way and got lucky’.
But, there was no luck at all in the empirical sense. It could never have been doom, we just didn’t know that for sure. So, we took a risk, but it turns out that there was no actual risk.
Based on this, naively, we might then decide to make a correction to every other pro-Doom prediction, where the risk factor is considered to have been overestimated substantially. For a pdoom of 99.99% doom that would take us down to like 50% (say). But Liron’s pdoom is typically around 50% at the moment. So, applying a correction would take him into ‘safe’ territory.
Now, I’m being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but isn’t this worth considering?
I think it is, especially given that the most recent mainline doom scenario I could find from Liron was an updated version of the previous scenario where a misaligned superintelligence optimises for something stupid that results in hell. If the logic that leads to this is the same logic that made wrong predictions in the past, it needs updating further.
For the record, I find misaligned superintelligence that wants non-stupid things that still happen to result in hell / death for humans a lot more convincing.
(This is a quick take—don’t take it that seriously if I don’t articulate other people’s views accurately here)
Just listened to a few more episodes of Doom Debates. Something that stands out is that the predictions from the Liron-esque worldview have been consistently overweighted towards doom so far. So, Liron will say things along the lines of ‘GPT3 could have been doom, we didn’t know either way and got lucky’.
But, there was no luck at all in the empirical sense. It could never have been doom, we just didn’t know that for sure. So, we took a risk, but it turns out that there was no actual risk.
Based on this, naively, we might then decide to make a correction to every other pro-Doom prediction, where the risk factor is considered to have been overestimated substantially. For a pdoom of 99.99% doom that would take us down to like 50% (say). But Liron’s pdoom is typically around 50% at the moment. So, applying a correction would take him into ‘safe’ territory.
Now, I’m being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but isn’t this worth considering?
I think it is, especially given that the most recent mainline doom scenario I could find from Liron was an updated version of the previous scenario where a misaligned superintelligence optimises for something stupid that results in hell. If the logic that leads to this is the same logic that made wrong predictions in the past, it needs updating further.
For the record, I find misaligned superintelligence that wants non-stupid things that still happen to result in hell / death for humans a lot more convincing.