Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ben Smith's avatar

This was interesting and I find it convincing that at least it's reasonable to reject a reluctance to assign very low probabilities.

I'm not sure whether I should think about your post as relevant to my own perspective or not. I'd put myself in the "low percent x-risk community".

That's not because I have a generalized reluctance to assign 0 probability to x risk specifically. But probably I do have a generalized reluctance to assign zero to various specific doom scenarios, and when I add them up, I get a low probability. to name a few: a powerful multimodal agent model trained with the wrong goal via RL will find that goal incompatible with life, or maybe someone crazy deliberately builds a destructive system, or some kind of model scheming emerges based on the training data and this is then unpredictability triggered by some kind of prompt to be destructive.

Maybe the question is whether I'm assigning non-zero probability to each of these events only out of a reluctance to ever assign zero probability to things, or whether I actually think there are good arguments specific to the nature of those events that they have a low, non-zero probability of occuring.

Peter Slattery / MIT recently released the "AI Risk repository" listing general risks of AI. It would be an interesting exercise to iterate through that and examine whether there are good substantive arguments for any of them.

Expand full comment
Alexej.Gerstmaier's avatar

Homo Sapiens turned out to be smarter than other Hominids and exterminated all of them. Why does that not count as evidence?

Expand full comment

No posts