Sure, but the alignment problem was always about the existential threat. LLM's are already killing people. Cars kill people. A technology that kills some people just needs to be regulated to be used in a safe way.
That's a lot of words to explain that people block you when you are an arsehole online.
It sounds like you need to do the intellectual equivalent of eating your vegetables, and get off the internet, find some real people to talk to, and do the work of actually becoming an expert.
Heh, you should play around with the probabilities. Run a D3 instead and see how it feels. Or run a dice pool like 4 dice and potentially get up to 4 coffees a day (along with an ultramarathon lol). Or do 2D6 and get a coffee when they add up to 7. Or roll a D20 and get yourself a steak dinner on 20, that'll be funny when you roll three of those in a row.
1) What do you expect? We already live in a world full of sci-fi wonders.
2) LLM's as they currently stand are a video-calling in the 90's level of futuristic. As in, kinda what we associate with the future, but the fictional versions are way more powerful than reality.
3) People recognise that AGI isn't for them. It's current trajectory will further enrich a few. Leaving the rest of us to an uncertain and probably worse off fate. So I would say its pretty understandable that people aren't exactly jazzed about that prospect
This reads like a religious person complaining about people's lack of faith.
I notice that you refer to people working on AGI as 'people' and the people who either disagree with you or are ignorant of AGI as 'humans'. That's some sneaky dehumanising language that you should probably check in with yourself on. Because that's the sort of thought patterns that allow you to justify horrible things happening to people.
Dave: What's your favourite colour?
Alice: Green
Dave: That’s not very precise.
Alice: Well that wasn't a very precise question. If you wanted preciseness you should have asked for hue, value and chroma, or the numerical value of my favourite colour.
Interesting idea, and intuitively it makes sense. I can think of examples of both types of player in my own life.
I enjoy that your solutions boil down to "Sociologists, mathematicians' are toddlers, distract them with a toy" and "Mathematicians, try using your social skills".
In my experience though, rather than trying to manipulate people, it usually works better to be explicit about intentions. As a really blatant example, our local pickleball club hosts separate competitive and casual nights. These both are attended by many of the same people, and they... (read more)
Except that no one is asking for your wallet to avert the Doom scenario.
What if instead we imagine that you are the Microsoft CEO and a stranger stops you in a dark alley and tells you that if you give them 140bn dollars they will create God and you get to be God's boss.
That seems closer to the standard Pascals mugging format.
It is pretty funny and ironic that the rationalists have accidentally become straw-vulcans in the public perception.
I only read a call for a more 'hippie' rationalism. You've made a number of logical error which Yudkowsky explicitly calls out in in his sequences. Maybe have another read.
And honestly, I disagree that fun, freedom and connection to nature are somehow separate from epistemic rigour.