Tallinn and Price are very concerned with AI-related Xrisk. Martin Rees currently considers biological risks his no.1 concern (which is not to say he’s unconcerned by AI); he’s famously offered bets on a major (~1 million death) bio-related catastrophe occuring in the coming years. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124121965740478983.html
Sean_o_h
Karma: 700
Hi,
Let me introduce myself: I’m Sean and I work as project manager at FHI (finally got around to registering!). In posts here I won’t be speaking on behalf of FHI unless I explicitly state so (although, like Stuart, I imagine I often will be). I’m not involved officially with CSER, but I’m in communication with them and hope to be keeping up to date with them over the coming months.
A few comments on your observations:
2) CSER have done a deliberate and well-orchestrated “media splash” campaign over the last week, but I believe they’re finished with this now. They’ve got some big names involved and a good support structure in place in Cambridge, which helps.
3) My understanding is that CSER hasn’t published anything yet because they don’t exist yet in a practical sense—they’ve been founded but nobody’s employed, and they’re still gathering seed funding.
4) The Sunday Times article’s a bit unfortunate and the general feeling at FHI is that we’re not too impressed by the journalist’s work, but please note that the more “controversial” statements are the journalist’s own thoughts (it’s not clear in all places if you skim the article like I did at first). CSER has some good people behind it, and at the time of writing the FHI plans to support it and collaborate with it where possible—we think it’s a very positive development in the field of Xrisk. Even the term getting out there is a positive!
If this results in existential risk reduction, let me be the first to raise a glass to xrisk’s “fashionability”.