AI forecasting & strategy at AI Impacts. Blog: Not Optional.
An undignified way for everyone to die: an AI lab produces clear, decisive evidence of AI risk/scheming/uncontrollability, freaks out, and tells the world. A less cautious lab ends the world a year later.
A possible central goal of AI governance: cause an AI lab produces decisive evidence of AI risk/scheming/uncontrollability, freaks out, and tells the world to result in rules that stop all labs from ending the world.
I don't know how we can pursue that goal.
I don't want to try to explain now, sorry.
(This shortform was intended more as starting-a-personal-list than as a manifesto.)
What's the best thing to read on "Zvi's writing on EAs confusing the map for the territory"? Or at least something good?
Thanks for the engagement. Sorry for not really engaging back. Hopefully someday I'll elaborate on all this in a top-level post.
Briefly: by axiological utilitarianism, I mean classical (total, act) utilitarianism, as a theory of the good, not as a decision procedure for humans to implement.
Thanks. I agree that the benefits could outweigh the costs, certainly at least for some humans. There are sophisticated reasons to be veg(etari)an. I think those benefits aren't cruxy for many EA veg(etari)ans, or many veg(etari)ans I know.
Or me. I'm veg(etari)an for selfish reasons — eating animal corpses or feeling involved in the animal-farming-and-killing process makes me feel guilty and dirty.
I certainly haven't done the cost-benefit analysis on veg(etari)anism, on the straightforward animal-welfare consideration or the considerations you mention. For example, if I was veg(etari)an for the straightforward reason (for agent-neutral consequentialist reasons), I'd do the cost-benefit analysis, and do things like:
I think my veg(etari)an friends are mostly like me — veg(etari)an for selfish reasons. And they don't notice this.
Written quickly, maybe hard-to-parse and imprecise.
(I agree it is reasonable to have a bid-ask spread when betting against capable adversaries. I think the statements-I-object-to are asserting something else, and the analogy to financial markets is mostly irrelevant. I don't really want to get into this now.)
Thanks. I agree! (Except with your last sentence.) Sorry for failing to communicate clearly; we were thinking about different contexts.
Some people say things like "my doom-credence fluctuates between 10% and 25% day to day"; this is dutch-book-able and they'd make better predictions if they reported what they feel like on average rather than what they feel like today, except insofar as they have new information.
Common beliefs/attitudes/dispositions among [highly engaged EAs/rationalists + my friends] which seem super wrong to me:
Possibly I'm wrong about which attitudes are common.
For now I'm just starting a list, not trying to be legible, much less change minds. I know I haven't explained my views.
Edit: I'm sharing controversial beliefs, without justification and with some framed provocatively. If one of these views makes you think worse of me to a nontrivial degree, please ask for elaboration; maybe there's miscommunication or it's more reasonable than it seems. Edit 2: there are so many comments; I may not respond to requests-for-elaboration but will at least notice them as a bid-for-elaboration-at-some-point.
I have high credence in basically zero x-risk after [the time of perils / achieving technological maturity and then stabilizing / 2050]. Even if it was pretty low, "pretty low" * 10^70 ≈ 10^70. Most value comes from the worlds with extremely low longterm rate of x-risk, even if you think they're unlikely.
(I expect an effective population much much larger than 10^10 humans, but I'm not sure "population size" will be a useful concept (e.g. maybe we'll decide to wait billions of years before converting resources to value), but that's not the crux here.)