I don't think "we're currently living in a simulation" or "ASI would have effects beyond imagination, at least for the median human imaginer" are such weird beliefs among this crowd that them proving true would qualify for OP to win the bet. Of course, they specifically say that if UAP are special cases in the simulation that counts, but not the mere belief in simulation.
Would you mind sharing how much you will win if the bet goes your way and everyone pays out?
Also, I would like to see more actions like yours, so I'd like to put money into that. I want to unconditionally give you $50; if you win the bet you may (but would be under no obligation to) return this money to me. All I'd need now is an ETH wallet to send money to.
I would like this to be construed as a meta-level incentive for people to have this attitude of "put up or shut up" while offering immediate payouts; not as taking a stance on the object-level question.
I hear you, thank you for your comment.
I guess I don't have a clear model for how big is the pool of people who:
As soon as someone managed to turn ChatGPT into an agent (AutoGPT), someone created an agent, ChaosGPT, with the explicit goal to destroy humankind. This is the kind of person that might benefit from having what I intend to produce: an overview of AI capabilities required to end the world, how far along we are in obtaining them, and so on. I want this information to be used to prevent an existential catastrophe, not precipitate it.
I would like to be given pointers to prior art on the following question: how do we communicate about potential risks from AI in a net-positive way, taking into account the negative that is giving people ideas? I can easily see how someone describing steps an AI takeover could happen influences someone who is malicious or just cares less about safety. This directly relates to the research I intend to pursue, relating specific capabilities AI systems do have or can acquire and the risk factors associated with them.
Thank you for your post. It is important for us to keep refining the overall p(doom) and the ways it might happen or be averted. You make your point very clearly, even in just the version presented here, condensed from your full posts on varios specific points.
It seems to me that you are applying a sort of symmetric argument to values and capabilities and arguing that x-risk requires that we hit the bullseye of capability but miss the one for values. I think this has a problem and I'd like to know your view as to how much this problem affects your overall argument.
The problem, as I see it, is that goal-space... (read more)
Gwern has posted several of Kurzweil's predictions on Predictionbook and I have marked many of them as either right or wrong. In some cases I included comments on the bits of research I did.
I couldn't get things to work here, but thank you Elizabeth, Raymond and Ben for trying to help me! Have fun!
I'm thinking a few things that are perhaps not super important individually, but ought to have at least some weight in such an index:
Standardization and transportation
AlphaGo used about 0.5 petaflops (= trillion floating point operations per second)
Isn't peta- the prefix for quadrillion?
As I understand it – with my only source being Ben's post and a couple of comments that I've read – Drew is also a cofounder of Nonlinear. Also, this was reported:
... (read more)