I thought the criticism on that specific quote was that the "higher intelligence" group, while taking more time, did solve the hard questions correctly, as opposed to not solving them correctly at all.
I wonder how much the survey paying a few RMB and asking for a wechat ID influenced the results. Great work working and sharing this poll though!
While this survey’s responses are anonymous, respondents did submit their WeChat IDs so that they could be remunerated for participation.
Top 10 donations in 2023, since the html page offers no sorting and is sorted by date:
| $2,800,000 | Cooperative AI Foundation | General support |
| $1,846,000 | Alignment Research Center | General support for ARC Evals Team |
| $1,733,000 | Center for Applied Rationality | General support for Lightcone Infrastructure |
| $1,327,000 | Center on Long-Term Risk | General support |
| $1,241,000 | Manifold for Charity | General support for Manifold Markets |
| $1,159,000 | Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters | General support |
| $1,000,000 | Carnegie Mellon University | Foundations of Cooperative AI Lab |
| $1,000,000 | Massachusetts Institute of Tech | Gift to the Tegmark research group at MIT for General Support |
| $1,000,000 | Meridian Prime | General support |
| $909,000 | Center for Artificial Intelligence Safety | General support |
1The current link to the podcast is available here: https://munkdebates.com/podcast/the-rise-of-thinking-machines
It seems one could convince this hypothetical emperor to invest into industrialization of technology by offering to build things other than a steam engine, or outlining how a steam engine leads to them -- telegraph, or semaphore towers to send news of invasions or changes in distant towns or provinces, better manufacturing capability for tools and weapons, food storage and transport mechanisms, etc.
I looked over a bit of David's public facing work, eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7hJggz41oU
I think there is a fundamental difference between robust, security minded alignment and tweaking smaller language models to produce output that "looks" correct. It seems David is very optimistic about how easy these problems are to solve.
I tracked down the exact quote where Prof Marcus was talking about timelines with regards to jobs. He mentioned 20-100 years (right before the timestamp) and then went on to say: https://youtu.be/TO0J2Yw7usM?t=2438
"In the long run, so called AGI really will replace a large fraction of human jobs. We're not that close to AGI, despite all the media hype and so forth ... in 20 years people will laugh at this ... but when we get to AGI, let's say it is 50 years that is really going to have profound effects on labor..."
Christina Montgomery is explicitly asked "Should we have one" [referring to a new agency] by Senator Lindsey Graham and says "I don't think so" at https://youtu.be/TO0J2Yw7usM?t=4920
I was somewhat disturbed by the enthusiastic audience applause to dire serious warnings. What are techniques or ways to anchor conversations like this to keep them more serious?
A bit of feedback: the "We get a second chance at building AGI" outcome should not be an outcome or perhaps rephrased.