= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
multifoliaterose comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (613)
Can you give a few more examples of claims made by SIAI staff that people find uncredible? Because it's probably not entirely clear to them (or to others interested in existential risk advocacy) what kind of things a typical smart person would find uncredible.
Looking at your previous comments, I see that another example you gave was that AGI will be developed within the next century. Any other examples?
Good question. I'll get back to you on this when I get a chance, I should do a little bit of research on the topic first. The two examples that you've seen are the main ones that I have in mind that have been stated in public, but there may be others that I'm forgetting.
There are some other examples that I have in mind from my private correspondence with Michael Vassar. He's made some claims which I personally do not find at all credible. (I don't want to repeat these without his explicit permission.) I'm sold on the cause of existential risk reduction, so the issue in my top level post does not apply here. But in the course of the correspondence I got the impression that he may say similar things in private to other people who are not sold on the cause of existential risk.