I'm not making an affirmative case - I'm looking for others to introspect about this, and anchor their expectations.

If we have a bioweapon close call, would you consider AI an existential risk at that point? If not, how close would we need to get?

You don't need to answer here, or disclose anything publicly - just think and remember.

▲

dullcrisp 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t really understand this exercise of predicting what I’ll be thinking in the future.

▲

cowthulhu 2 hours ago | parent [-]

To avoid shifting goalposts

▲

dullcrisp 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There are no goalposts. No one is trying to score points except you.

▲

cowthulhu 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think I'm coming across as confrontational, which is genuinely not my intention - sorry about that. Not trying to score points or anything, just encourage people to introspect a bit :)

I think your viewpoint is totally valid, and I'm not trying to argue against it.

▲

dullcrisp an hour ago | parent [-]

Not confrontational, but proselytizing.

▲

cowthulhu an hour ago | parent [-]

Is there truly nothing an AI system could do (no matter how outlandish it seems today) that would give you pause?

▲

dullcrisp an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes, just like that. What would it take for you to accept Our Lord into your heart?

▲

cowthulhu an hour ago | parent [-]

The bar is high, but there's probably some combination of events (combined with a high confidence in my own lucidity over an extended period of time) that would convince me.

▲

dullcrisp an hour ago | parent [-]

Same same.

	▲	cowthulhu an hour ago \| parent [-]
		:\

▲

emil-lp 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> If we have a bioweapon close call, would you consider AI an existential risk at that point? If not, how close would we need to get?

The thing is, this doesn't really mean anything.

What is a bioweapon close call? What is the process in which a bioweapon close call happens? An AI that hacks all cell phones to emitt anthrax?