Market odds are currently at 54% that 2024 is hotter than 2023: https://manifold.markets/SteveRabin/will-the-average-global-temperature?r=Um9iZXJ0Q291c2luZWF1

I have some substantial limit orders +-8% if anyone strongly disagrees.

I like the writeup, but reccomend actually directly posting it to LessWrong. The writeup is of a much higher quality than your summary, and would be well suited to inline comments/the other features of the site.

I have a lot of trouble justifying to myself reading through more than the first five paragraphs.  Below is my commentary on what I've read.

I doubt that the short term impacts of sub-human level AI, be it generating prose, photographs, or films, on our epistemology are negative enough to justify them being weighted high as the X-Risk that is likely to emerge upon creating human level AI.  

We have been living in a adversarial information space for as long as we have had human civilization.  Some of the most most impressive changes to our epistemology were made prior to photographs (empiricism, rationalism, etc), some of them were made after (they are cool!).  It will require modifying how we judge the accuracy of a given claim when we can no longer trust photos/videos in low stakes situations (we've not been able to trust them in high stakes situations for as long as they have existed; see special effects, film making, conspiracies about any number of recorded claims, etc), but that is just a normal fact of human societal evolution.  

If you want to convince (me, at least) that this is a threat that is potentially society ending, I would love an argument/hook that addresses my above claims.

This seems like highly relevant (even if odd/disconcerting) information.  I'm not sure if it should necessarily get it's own post (is this as important than the UK AI Summit or the Executive Order?), but it should certainly gets a top level item in your next roundup at least.  

I think unless you take a very linguistics heavy understanding of the emergence of qualia, you are over-weighting your arguments around being able to communicate with an agent being highly related to how likely they are to have consciousness.  

___________________________________________________________________________________________

You say:

In short, there are some neural circuits in our brains that run qualia. These circuits have inputs and outputs: signals get into our brains, get processed, and then, in some form, get inputted into these circuits. These circuits also have outputs: we can talk about our experience, and the way we talk about it corresponds to how we actually feel.

And: 

It is valid to infer that, likely, qualia has been beneficial in human evolution, or it is a side effect of something that has been beneficial in human evolution.

I think both of the above statements are very likely true.  From that, it is hard to say that a chimpanzee likely to lack those same circuits.  Neither our mental circuits nor our ancestral environments are that different.  Similarly, it is hard to say "OK, this is what a lemur is missing, as compared to a chimpanzee".  

I agree that as you go down the list of potentially conscious entities (e.g. Humans -> Chimpanzees -> Lemurs -> Rats -> Bees -> Worms -> Bacteria -> Virus -> Balloon) it gets less likely that each has qualia, but I am very hesitant to put anything like an order of magnitude jump at each level.  

Did you hear back here?

Retracted - my apologies. I was debating if I should add a source when I commented that and clearly I should have.

This post prompted me to create the following Manifold Market on the likelihood of a Sharp Left Turn occuring (as described by the Tag Definition, Nate Soares, and Victoria Krakovna et. al), prior to 2050: https://manifold.markets/RobertCousineau/will-a-sharp-left-turn-occur-as-des?r=Um9iZXJ0Q291c2luZWF1

Take note: it is only 2 hours away if you are driving in the middle of the night, on a weeknight. Else, it is 3-4 hours depending on how bad traffic is (there will almost always be some along I-5).