Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but “fairly likely...that we still get an AI takeover” and “very good chance… our implementation still falls short” seems at odds with a roughly “20-30% chance...for AI takeover”, no?
another-anon-do-gooder
Karma: 2
I’d appreciate if someone could tell me what I’m missing. I don’t mind the downvotes, I’d just like if someone who disagrees could shed some light. To be clear, I’m certainly not advocating for anyone to take the described actions, but not everyone is ethical
“Our futures have never been more correlated”, wrote a Nick Cammarata tweet. I’m wondering how true that is for people who think we’re in an unstoppable arms race towards world-ending ASI. If these individuals are selfish enough, wouldn’t they want to kill nearly all of humanity from a bunker prior to takeoff, so as to stop takeoff? I’m thinking of a window when AI is powerful enough for catastrophic misuse but not yet self-recursively improving.
another-anon-do-gooder’s Shortform
Does your agreement stem from thinking defense could hold off offense? I ask because I’m curious what alternatives to AI hegemony might exist. I agree that an AI hegemon would likely be problematic, but if offense can beat defense, I wonder what alternatives might be realistic (apologies if you’ve addressed this elsewhere)
Thanks, I appreciate your reply!