bruh what? Are we reading the same blog? Bryan says the responsibility is the person making the extraordinary claim. If tomorrow Jacob Coxon comes on CNN and says "Jacob Gold is an extinction risk to humanity". What are we supposed to do? Put you in a bunker and never let you see the light of day until someone proves otherwise?

If someone doesn't accept an extraordinary claim without evidence, that doesn't mean they are making an extraordinary claim.

▲

jacobgold 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There seem to be two extraordinary claims which lack evidence:

a) 10% existential risk

b) 0% existential risk

▲

goatlover 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What's the evidence for there being an existential risk? We are provided scenarios which read like science fiction about RSI and ASI right around the corner, resulting in magic sounding technology that can do anything the person making the claim wants it to do, because it can just make itself smart enough in a short amount of time. But the person making the claim has to actually show how such a thing is possible in the real world, not just a story.

▲

jacobgold 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The clear and predictable power of AI is the evidence for existential risk. Even if we don't get RSI or ASI, there's a risk we'll automate our world, then it'll break and we'll starve, etc.

	▲	worik 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The clear and predictable power of AI is the evidence for existential risk * The "predictable power of AI" is very advanced predictive text. What a lot you can do with that, and there are clear limits. * AI has no intent. The greedheads who find themselves in these positions of power have clear intent (often but not always bordering on and actively becoming misanthropic) put their intentions on AI - hence to doom mongering * Who will starve with the failure of agriculture? A few, a lot, but not everybody. We are good at this - have been doing it a lot longer than computing or science

▲

adithyareddy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

(a) is an extraordinary claim, (b) is not an extraordinary claim.

▲

jacobgold 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There are very clear and plausible pathways from AI to human extinction level events, regardless of how small you think the probability is.

So yes, it very obviously is an extraordinary claim to say there is 0% existential risk.

▲

adithyareddy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are no clear and plausible pathways to human extinction level events that AI makes worse or more likely in any way. It is obviously not an extraordinary claim at all.

▲

duhhhhh1212 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good god. You are burden shifting. a) big claim no evidence. b). says a has no evidence; therefore, I will continue to not let fear manipulate me into believing a claim without evidence.

I have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes a big claim without evidence.

	▲	jacobgold 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		B is not a claim that A has no evidence, that's just confused. It's an independent claim that there is 0% risk.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]