You literally did not understand the numbers I used. I at no point said it had a 95% chance of wiping out humanity. I gave no number whatsoever there. What I said was that the chance of bad actors gaining control of AGI was 1.5 orders of magnitude lower than the risk of... 1/
-
-
he may also doubt that "bad actors" are a thing. (Bad relative to *whom*? Can we assume that the two of you can point at the same group of people and call them "bad actors"? People dispute who counts as "a terrorist" depending on their allegiances.)
-
I think this is a fair read, and reminds me of how I felt listening to the Sam Harris / Ezra Klein debate - to what extent can we treat and evaluate sentences "context free"
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Well but assumptions aren't the sane as values though. Glen doubts agi is a thing vs EY thinks agi is a thing Doesn't sound like a value distinction or political. Bad actors obiously depends on values, but that's not relevant since they most likely agree what they mean there.
-
Or at least it's nor really what the main discussion and disagreement is about.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.