Actually, computer science conferences are peer reviewed. They play a similar role as journals in other fields. I think it's just a historical curiosity that it's conferences rather than journals that are the prestigious places to publish in CS!
Of course, this doesn't change the overall picture of some AI work and much AI safety work not being peer reviewed.
I agree with this comment, but I interpreted your original comment as implying a much greater degree of certainty of extinction assuming ASI is developed than you might have intended. My disagree vote was meant to disagree with the implication that it's near certain. If you think it's not near certain it'd cause extinction or equivalent, then it does seem worth considering who might end up controlling ASI!
You're stating it as a fact that "it is" a game of chicken, i.e. that it's certain or very likely that developing ASI will cause a global catastrophe because of misaligned takeover. It's an outcome I'm worried about, but it's far from certain, as I see it. And if it's not certain, then it is worth considering what people would do with aligned AI.
I heard reports of it getting out of sync or being out of date in some way. For example, a room change on Swapcard not being reflected in the Google calendar. I haven't tried it myself, and I haven't heard anything less vague, sorry.
I agree that thinking about other moral theories is useful for working out what utilitarianism would actually recommend.
That's an interesting point re increasing the total amount of killing, I hadn't considered that! But I was actually picking up on your comment which seemed to say something more general - that you wouldn't intrinsically take into account whether an option involved (you) killing people, you'd just look at the consequences (and killing can lead to worse consequences, including in indirect ways, of course).
But it sounds like maybe your response to that is you're not worried about moral uncertainty / you're sure about utilitarianism / you don't have any reason to avoid killing people, other than the (normally very significant) utilitarian reasons not to kill?
Do you not worry about moral uncertainty? Unless you're certain about consequentialism, surely you should put some weight on avoiding killing even if it maximises impartial welfare?
I wasn't sure if I was, but reading the guidelines matched my guess of what they would say, so I think I was familiar with them.
Actually, computer science conferences are peer reviewed. They play a similar role as journals in other fields. I think it's just a historical curiosity that it's conferences rather than journals that are the prestigious places to publish in CS!
Of course, this doesn't change the overall picture of some AI work and much AI safety work not being peer reviewed.
Agree coin flip is unacceptable! Or even much less than coin flip is still unacceptable.
I agree with this comment, but I interpreted your original comment as implying a much greater degree of certainty of extinction assuming ASI is developed than you might have intended. My disagree vote was meant to disagree with the implication that it's near certain. If you think it's not near certain it'd cause extinction or equivalent, then it does seem worth considering who might end up controlling ASI!
You're stating it as a fact that "it is" a game of chicken, i.e. that it's certain or very likely that developing ASI will cause a global catastrophe because of misaligned takeover. It's an outcome I'm worried about, but it's far from certain, as I see it. And if it's not certain, then it is worth considering what people would do with aligned AI.
I heard reports of it getting out of sync or being out of date in some way. For example, a room change on Swapcard not being reflected in the Google calendar. I haven't tried it myself, and I haven't heard anything less vague, sorry.
I think that the Google calendar syncing is at least a bit buggy for now, FYI. Agree good news though!
When will the next round likely be?
Thanks Vasco! :)
I agree that thinking about other moral theories is useful for working out what utilitarianism would actually recommend.
That's an interesting point re increasing the total amount of killing, I hadn't considered that! But I was actually picking up on your comment which seemed to say something more general - that you wouldn't intrinsically take into account whether an option involved (you) killing people, you'd just look at the consequences (and killing can lead to worse consequences, including in indirect ways, of course). But it sounds like maybe your response to that is you're not worried about moral uncertainty / you're sure about utilitarianism / you don't have any reason to avoid killing people, other than the (normally very significant) utilitarian reasons not to kill?
Do you not worry about moral uncertainty? Unless you're certain about consequentialism, surely you should put some weight on avoiding killing even if it maximises impartial welfare?