|
| ▲ | Sharlin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It’s easy to never have to change your mind about anything if you insist on unreasonable enough standard of evidence. It’s, like, one of the oldest tricks in the book. Luckily, it’s not like there’s any need to try to change your mind in particular. |
| |
| ▲ | wewewedxfgdf 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> if you insist on unreasonable enough standard of evidence One single plausible scenario is not an unreasonable thing to ask for - just one. If a politician/celebrity/tech person with significant influence/power claims that something might end humanity then they absolutely have the utterly minimal standard of evidence which is to describe one single realistic plausible mechanism at a detailed level that might lead to the worst possible thing ever to happen. | | |
| ▲ | reasonableklout 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I expect they are not to your very high standards of "non-handwavey, detail exactly how it happens", but this paper from Andrew Critch and Jacob Tsimerman describes 5 different scenarios where catastrophic human casualties occur as a result of AI either being misused or going out of control: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.09369 I find the scenarios quite plausible, especially section (3a), which examines the consequences of a global war involving mostly autonomous drone militaries (which is a reality many states appear to be heading towards, following on lessons from the Ukraine war). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why are you so insistent that people should post detailed plans for destroying the human race on public fora? I don't think it is necessary for the argument to work. Magnus Carlsen can be confident he will beat me at chess without giving a detailed explanation of every move he will make, in advance. |
| |
| ▲ | wewewedxfgdf 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> Why are you so insistent that people should post detailed plans for destroying the human race on public fora? Because its a mass hallucination/misconception/lie and lots of powerful people are saying that wiping out all humanity is possible, and I am saying, oh yeah, tell me ONE way that is truly possible. If you make gigantic claims about some terrible disaster that might happen then I think you have the onus to give even one plausible explanation of how. | | |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >If you make gigantic claims about some terrible disaster that might happen then I think you have the onus to give even one plausible explanation of how. Supposing I warned in 2015 that the world is awfully vulnerable to pandemics. You're not going to take me seriously until I try to predict in advance every aspect of how a pandemic like COVID-19 would unfold? Why? What would that achieve exactly? You haven't given any strong reason to believe wiping out humanity would be difficult. Your big argument seems to be that you couldn't think of a plausible scenario, in two minutes. But many major historical events occurred which weren't necessarily possible to anticipate with two minutes of thinking. | | |
| ▲ | wewewedxfgdf 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're arguing that "something bad might happen" - sure no problem. You are ignoring that this is about "existential threat to humanity". You're trying to support the argument that there is an existential threat to humanity by pointing to "something bad might happen". |
|
|
|
