SS

Stefan_Schubert

6540 karmaJoined

Bio

I'm a researcher in psychology and philosophy.

https://stefanschubert.substack.com/

Comments
710

Topic contributions
39

Detail, but afaict there were at least five Irish participants.

I was going to make a point about a ‘lack of EA leadership’ turning up apart from Zach Robinson, but when I double-checked the event attendee list I think I was just wrong on this. Sure, a couple of big names didn’t turn up, and it may depend on what list of ‘EA leaders’ you’re using as a reference, but I want to admit I was directionally wrong here.

Fwiw I think there was such a tendency.

Thanks, this is great. You could consider publishing it as a regular post (either after or without further modification).

I think it's an important take since many in EA/AI risk circles have expected governments to be less involved:

https://twitter.com/StefanFSchubert/status/1719102746815508796?t=fTtL_f-FvHpiB6XbjUpu4w&s=19

It would be good to see more discussion on this crucial question.

The main thing you could consider adding is more detail; e.g. maybe step-by-step analyses of how governments might get involved. For instance, this is a good question that it would be good to learn more about:

"does it look more like much more regulations or international treaties with civil observers or more like almost-unprecedented nationalization of AI as an industry[?]"

But of course that's hard.

I don't find it hard to imagine how this would happen. I find Linch's claim interesting and would find an elaboration useful. I don't thereby imply that the claim is unlikely to be true.

Thanks, I think this is interesting, and I would find an elaboration useful.

In particular, I'd be interested in elaboration of the claim that "If (1, 2, 3), then government actors will eventually take an increasing/dominant role in the development of AGI".

The reasoning is that knowledgeable people's beliefs in a certain view is evidence for that view.

This is a type of reasoning people use a lot in many different contexts. I think it's a valid and important type of reasoning (even though specific instances of it can of course be mistaken).

Some references:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/#EquaWeigView

https://www.routledge.com/Why-Its-OK-Not-to-Think-for-Yourself/Matheson/p/book/9781032438252

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WKPd79PESRGZHQ5GY/in-defence-of-epistemic-modesty

Yes; it could be useful if Stephen briefly explained how his classification relates to other classifications. (And which advantages it has - I guess simplicity is one.)

Load more