alenglander's Shortform

by alenglander2nd Dec 20191 comment
Crossposted from the AI Alignment Forum. May contain more technical jargon than usual.
1 comments, sorted by Highlighting new comments since Today at 12:27 AM
New Comment

Something I've been thinking about recently. I've been reading several discussions surrounding potential risks from AI, especially the essays and interviews on AI Impacts. A lot of these discussions seem to me to center on trying to extrapolate from known data, or to analyze whether AI is or is not analogous to various historical transitions.

But it seems to me that trying to reason based on historical precedent or extrapolated data is only one way of looking at these issues. The other way seems to be more like what Bostrom did in Superintelligence, which seems more like reasoning based on theoretical models of how AI works, what could go wrong, how the world would likely react, etc.

It seems to me that the more you go with the historical analogies / extrapolated data approach, the more skeptical you'll be of claims from people claiming that AI risk is a huge problem. And conversely, the more you go with the reasoning from theoretical models approach, the more concerned you'll be. I'd probably put Robin Hanson somewhere close to the extreme end of the extrapolated data approach, and I'd put Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nick Bostrom close to the extreme end of the theoretical models approach. AI Impacts seems to fall closer to Hanson on this spectrum.

Of course, there's no real hard line between the two approaches. Reasoning from historical precedent and extrapolated data necessarily requires some theoretical modeling, and vice versa. But I still think the basic distinction holds value.

If this is right, then the question is how much weight should we put on each type of reasoning, and why?