You're making good points. The selection bias one especially. The corpus is AI safety-focused podcasts (AXRP, 80,000 Hours, The Inside View, etc.), so it skews toward people who already take alignment seriously. LeCun, Ng, and others who think the framing is wrong don't typically appear on those shows, and when they do they're pushing back on the premise rather than giving a number.
The "10 to 99%" framing was honest about what's in this corpus but you're right that it implies a complete range. The "MacAskill among the lowest in serious circles" line was sloppy. That phrasing came from his own framing on 80k Hours but it carries an implication I didn't intend.
If anyone has pointers to AI safety podcast episodes with people in the under-5% range or rejecting the framing entirely, I'd appreciate it. That's a real gap in coverage I should address.
Thanks for asking, honestly not sure why the early downvotes. Guess the framing read too promotional first time around. Karma's recovered since. Worth mentioning the mobile experience was broken back then; that's fixed now if it matters.
Thanks! The disagreements are what make this field so interesting to map , the gap between Yudkowsky and MacAskill isn't just about probability estimates, it's about fundamentally different models of how AI development unfolds.
You're making good points. The selection bias one especially.
The corpus is AI safety-focused podcasts (AXRP, 80,000 Hours,
The Inside View, etc.), so it skews toward people who already
take alignment seriously. LeCun, Ng, and others who think the
framing is wrong don't typically appear on those shows, and
when they do they're pushing back on the premise rather than
giving a number.
The "10 to 99%" framing was honest about what's in this corpus
but you're right that it implies a complete range. The "MacAskill
among the lowest in serious circles" line was sloppy. That
phrasing came from his own framing on 80k Hours but it carries
an implication I didn't intend.
If anyone has pointers to AI safety podcast episodes with people
in the under-5% range or rejecting the framing entirely, I'd
appreciate it. That's a real gap in coverage I should address.
Thanks for asking, honestly not sure why the early downvotes.
Guess the framing read too promotional first time around. Karma's
recovered since. Worth mentioning the mobile experience was broken
back then; that's fixed now if it matters.
Thanks! The disagreements are what make this field so interesting to map , the gap between Yudkowsky and MacAskill isn't just about probability estimates, it's about fundamentally different models of how AI development unfolds.