Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share “Many arguments for AI x-risk are wrong” by TurnTrout
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
“Many arguments for AI x-risk are wrong” by TurnTrout
Crossposted from the AI Alignment Forum. May contain more technical jargon than usual.
The following is a lightly edited version of a memo I wrote for a retreat. It was inspired by a draft of Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom
, although the earlier draft contained some additional content. I personally really like the earlier content, and think that my post covers important points not made by the published version of that post.
Thankful for the dozens of interesting conversations and comments at the retreat.
I think that the AI alignment field is partially founded on fundamentally confused ideas. I’m worried about this because, right now, a range of lobbyists and concerned activists and researchers are in Washington making policy asks. Some of these policy proposals seem to be based on erroneous or unsound arguments.[1]
The most important takeaway from this essay is that [...]
---
Outline:
(02:04) Tracing back historical arguments
(05:03) Many arguments for doom are wrong
(07:28) The counting argument for AI “scheming” provides ~0 evidence
(09:40) The counting argument for extreme overfitting
(13:20) Recovering the counting argument?
(14:38) The counting argument doesnt count
(15:14) Other clusters of mistakes
(19:06) Conclusion
The original text contained 8 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
March 5th, 2024
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yQSmcfN4kA7rATHGK/many-arguments-for-ai-x-risk-are-wrong
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
View all episodes
By LessWrongCrossposted from the AI Alignment Forum. May contain more technical jargon than usual.
The following is a lightly edited version of a memo I wrote for a retreat. It was inspired by a draft of Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom
, although the earlier draft contained some additional content. I personally really like the earlier content, and think that my post covers important points not made by the published version of that post.
Thankful for the dozens of interesting conversations and comments at the retreat.
I think that the AI alignment field is partially founded on fundamentally confused ideas. I’m worried about this because, right now, a range of lobbyists and concerned activists and researchers are in Washington making policy asks. Some of these policy proposals seem to be based on erroneous or unsound arguments.[1]
The most important takeaway from this essay is that [...]
---
Outline:
(02:04) Tracing back historical arguments
(05:03) Many arguments for doom are wrong
(07:28) The counting argument for AI “scheming” provides ~0 evidence
(09:40) The counting argument for extreme overfitting
(13:20) Recovering the counting argument?
(14:38) The counting argument doesnt count
(15:14) Other clusters of mistakes
(19:06) Conclusion
The original text contained 8 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
March 5th, 2024
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yQSmcfN4kA7rATHGK/many-arguments-for-ai-x-risk-are-wrong
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
More shows like LessWrong (30+ Karma)
View all
The Daily
113,164 Listeners
Astral Codex Ten Podcast
130 Listeners
Interesting Times with Ross Douthat
7,255 Listeners
Dwarkesh Podcast
535 Listeners
The Ezra Klein Show
16,266 Listeners
AI Article Readings
4 Listeners
Doom Debates
14 Listeners
LessWrong posts by zvi
2 Listeners