You start by saying the post shifted burden of proof but conclude by asserting the burden should fall on short timelines because on average things don’t happen. This doesn’t seem logically valid. Weak arguments for short timelines don’t mean we can expect long timelines if arguments for them are weak too. Which they seem to be. We probably all agree that AGI is going to happen; the question is when?
If you just mean that two years seems unlikely in the absence of strong arguments, sure. But three years and up seems quite plausible.
Arguments are weak on all sides. This leads me to think that we simply don’t know. In that case, we had better be prepared for all scenarios.
Actually, I think that it is valid for the burden to fall on sort timelines because “on average things don’t happen.” Mainly because you can make the reference class more specific and the statement still holds—as I said, we have been trying to develop AGI for a long time (and there have been at least a couple of occasions when we drastically overestimated how soon it would arrive). 2-3 years is a very short time, which means it is a very strong claim.
Burden of proof should follow value of information, not plausibility. In particular, the most profitable thing to pursue is arguments you understand less about, which is often arguments in favor of things you disbelieve (since you’d be already familiar with arguments that’ve previously convinced you). So if someone wants to convince you of something you already believe, then the burden of proof is on them, but not if they want to convince you of something you disbelieve and didn’t get around to investigating yet.
You start by saying the post shifted burden of proof but conclude by asserting the burden should fall on short timelines because on average things don’t happen. This doesn’t seem logically valid. Weak arguments for short timelines don’t mean we can expect long timelines if arguments for them are weak too. Which they seem to be. We probably all agree that AGI is going to happen; the question is when?
If you just mean that two years seems unlikely in the absence of strong arguments, sure. But three years and up seems quite plausible.
Arguments are weak on all sides. This leads me to think that we simply don’t know. In that case, we had better be prepared for all scenarios.
Actually, I think that it is valid for the burden to fall on sort timelines because “on average things don’t happen.” Mainly because you can make the reference class more specific and the statement still holds—as I said, we have been trying to develop AGI for a long time (and there have been at least a couple of occasions when we drastically overestimated how soon it would arrive). 2-3 years is a very short time, which means it is a very strong claim.
Burden of proof should follow value of information, not plausibility. In particular, the most profitable thing to pursue is arguments you understand less about, which is often arguments in favor of things you disbelieve (since you’d be already familiar with arguments that’ve previously convinced you). So if someone wants to convince you of something you already believe, then the burden of proof is on them, but not if they want to convince you of something you disbelieve and didn’t get around to investigating yet.