In the canonical story of the playpump, we had an inventor who imagined the future benefit of his dual use water-well playground. He failed. We learned that we waste money when we rely on how well we imagine our ideas will work. We learned that we need to build and measure the results.
Those of us who speculate on their efficacy of curbing extinction risk and those of us who speculate on their improvement of future well being are all in the same boat as the inventor of the playpump.
Climate change derives from Stefhan-Boltzmann's law together with the spectral dependence of the emissivity of various gasses. Stefhan-Boltzmann's law has fundamental theoretical and experimental support.
This is the basis upon which climate models rest. This basis is unquestioned.
You appear to be claiming that climate change is not an existential risk? The term boogeyman includes the judgement that the fears were unfounded. Climate change is a demonstrable real problem, and consequently not a boogeyman.
For something to be a boogeyman, it has to be an imagined danger that captures the fears of a lot of otherwise rational people.
The linked nytimes article is on the Satanic Panic, the same as the linked wikipedia page. This generation's Boogeyman is yet to be determined. People who harbor insecurities about their own causes will self-identify by downvoting this topic.
I tried to follow with a particular shut down mechanism in mind and this whole argument is just too abstract to see how it applies.
Yudkowsky gave us a shut down mechanism in his Time Magazine article. He said we could bomb* the data centers. Can you show how these theorems cast doubt on this shut down proposal?
*"destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike." - https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-not-enough/
Your Tech Transfer office is a member of AUTM. AUTM encourages licenses that include altruistic clauses. For example, the license could waive royalties for sales in third world countries when the licensee is selling at cost.
Such a deal allows the licensee to make a profit on first world sales to recover development costs and also recognize the altruistic value. Most inventions require development money and if open sourced they die from lack of funding.
The debate sets aside a founding principle of EA.
In the canonical story of the playpump, we had an inventor who imagined the future benefit of his dual use water-well playground. He failed. We learned that we waste money when we rely on how well we imagine our ideas will work. We learned that we need to build and measure the results.
Those of us who speculate on their efficacy of curbing extinction risk and those of us who speculate on their improvement of future well being are all in the same boat as the inventor of the playpump.
Climate change derives from Stefhan-Boltzmann's law together with the spectral dependence of the emissivity of various gasses. Stefhan-Boltzmann's law has fundamental theoretical and experimental support.
This is the basis upon which climate models rest. This basis is unquestioned.
You appear to be claiming that climate change is not an existential risk? The term boogeyman includes the judgement that the fears were unfounded. Climate change is a demonstrable real problem, and consequently not a boogeyman.
For something to be a boogeyman, it has to be an imagined danger that captures the fears of a lot of otherwise rational people.
The linked nytimes article is on the Satanic Panic, the same as the linked wikipedia page. This generation's Boogeyman is yet to be determined. People who harbor insecurities about their own causes will self-identify by downvoting this topic.
I tried to follow with a particular shut down mechanism in mind and this whole argument is just too abstract to see how it applies.
Yudkowsky gave us a shut down mechanism in his Time Magazine article. He said we could bomb* the data centers. Can you show how these theorems cast doubt on this shut down proposal?
*"destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike." - https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-not-enough/
Your Tech Transfer office is a member of AUTM. AUTM encourages licenses that include altruistic clauses. For example, the license could waive royalties for sales in third world countries when the licensee is selling at cost.
Such a deal allows the licensee to make a profit on first world sales to recover development costs and also recognize the altruistic value. Most inventions require development money and if open sourced they die from lack of funding.
"when I know a bunch of excellent forecasters..."
Perhaps your sampling techniques are better than Tetlock's then.
Pro: Willard Wells
Highly effective causes saturate, making it impossible to distribute large sums of money especially more effectively.
AGI is more likely to save us from all-cause existential risk than it is likely to kill us all.