> Seems like being directionally right early that AI would be a Big Deal and scary should count for something?

If I scream that a vicious beast is going to destroy the world, I don't get credit for being 'directionally right' if a squirrel eats a hazelnut. AI being a big deal is a long, long way from the full beliefs Yudkowksy promotes, and there are many people who predicted AI's significance who didn't also believe it would be an extinction event.

▲ ianm218 an hour ago | parent [-]

This doesn’t track though. Just recently AI became “powerful enough” to warrant export controls from the US and maybe soon China.

It’s more he screamed that bacteria is gonna do evolution faster than any before it and turn into a beast that destroys the world, and now that bacteria has turned into a squirrel so far. He’s been very right so far and if that squirrel keeps sizing up you’d want to give him credit.

	▲	andy99 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		`Just recently AI became “powerful enough” to warrant export controls from the US and maybe soon China.` What’s the term I’m looking for here? This is one of the most absurd statements I’ve ever seen but it feels like a pattern I’ve forgotten from books or something. Someone makes a made up claim, second party acts on made up claim, third party takes second party’s actions a proof of claim. Reminds me of the “they’re eating pets” thing a bit.