Communication is about other people. It is the thoughts that we put into other’s heads, not the precise content of the propositions themselves. The graphs and other symbols we choose to use should put more likely-correct and contextually relevant thoughts into other people’s heads.
If I am communicating with someone because I believe their lack of information gives them an insufficiently aggressive model of past (and therefore probably future) AI capabilities progress, then the only reason I can think to use the sigmoid graph is to head off this specific criticism so that they are not distracted by the actual content of the communication. If I did make this choice, I would also want to put a cut in the y axis and cheekily label the upper value with something to indicate that it may be far beyond what they are currently entertaining to be possible.
I often do make this choice when verbally communicating. e.g. “Of course, it has to level off at some point, but that could very well be several orders of magnitude above human capability.” If I have exactly one image and no chance to elaborate, for most audiences, a sigmoid probably does a poorer job of putting correct and relevant thoughts into their heads than an exponential.
If I have exactly one image and no chance to elaborate, for most audiences, a sigmoid probably does a poorer job of putting correct and relevant thoughts into their heads than an exponential.
I am sympathetic to this line of argument. I agree that if I was showing a chart to a politician, I might not want to show them that they curve levels off, because if my goal is to get them to act on the basis of rapid growth that is exponential for a while resulting in dangers that need to be urgently responded to, I don’t have time for them to be thinking about when that growth ends because it might muddy the waters and make them less likely to act.
But then this isn’t really an accurate model anymore, it’s a model crafted to convince someone, to tell a version of what you believe that is persuasive to some end.
Communication is about other people. It is the thoughts that we put into other’s heads, not the precise content of the propositions themselves. The graphs and other symbols we choose to use should put more likely-correct and contextually relevant thoughts into other people’s heads.
If I am communicating with someone because I believe their lack of information gives them an insufficiently aggressive model of past (and therefore probably future) AI capabilities progress, then the only reason I can think to use the sigmoid graph is to head off this specific criticism so that they are not distracted by the actual content of the communication. If I did make this choice, I would also want to put a cut in the y axis and cheekily label the upper value with something to indicate that it may be far beyond what they are currently entertaining to be possible.
I often do make this choice when verbally communicating. e.g. “Of course, it has to level off at some point, but that could very well be several orders of magnitude above human capability.” If I have exactly one image and no chance to elaborate, for most audiences, a sigmoid probably does a poorer job of putting correct and relevant thoughts into their heads than an exponential.
I am sympathetic to this line of argument. I agree that if I was showing a chart to a politician, I might not want to show them that they curve levels off, because if my goal is to get them to act on the basis of rapid growth that is exponential for a while resulting in dangers that need to be urgently responded to, I don’t have time for them to be thinking about when that growth ends because it might muddy the waters and make them less likely to act.
But then this isn’t really an accurate model anymore, it’s a model crafted to convince someone, to tell a version of what you believe that is persuasive to some end.