Don't you think that a remotely responsible post should have at the very least emphasized that significantly more than you did?
Any person insufficiently familiar with rational skepticism to the point that they would not doubt their own conclusions and go through a rigorous process of validation before reaching a "90%" certainty statement would be immune to the kind of discourse this site focuses on in the first place.
It's not just implicit; it's necessary to reach that state. It's not irresponsible to know your audience.
If tomorrow some lone nut murders an AI researcher, and after being arrested says they found encouragement in your specific words,
Then they are a lunatic who does not know how to reason and would have done it one way or the other. In fact, this is already a real-world problem -- and my words have no impact on that one way or the other on those individuals.
and also says they never noticed you saying anything about "checks and confirmations", wouldn't you feel remotely responsible?
No. Nor should I. Any person who could come to a statement of "I am 90% certain of X" (as I used that 90% as a specific inclusion in the counterfactual) who also could not follow the dialogue-as-it-was to the reasonable conclusion that it was a counterfactual... well, they would have had their conclusion long before they read my words.
And as a sidenote, the lone nuts you'd be encouraging would be much more likely to murder FAI researchers, than those uFAI researchers that'd be working in military bases with the support of Russia, or China, or North Korea, or America.
I'm curious as to what makes you believe this to be the case. As far as I am aware, the fundamental AgI research ongoing in the world is currently being conducted in universities. The uFAI and the FAI 'crowd' are undifferentiated, today, in terms of their accessibility.
Any person insufficiently familiar with rational skepticism to the point that they would not doubt their own conclusions and go through a rigorous process of validation before reaching a "90%" certainty statement would be immune to the kind of discourse this site focuses on in the first place.
What is your certainty for this conclusion, and what rigorous process of validation did you use to arrive to it?
...I'm curious as to what makes you believe this to be the case. As far as I am aware, the fundamental AgI research ongoing in the world is curr
Here's a poser that occurred to us over the summer, and one that we couldn't really come up with any satisfactory solution to. The people who work at the Singularity Institute have a high estimate of the probability that an Unfriendly AI will destroy the world. People who work for http://nuclearrisk.org/ have a very high estimate of the probability that a nuclear war will destroy the world (by their estimates, if you are American and under 40, then nuclear war is the single most likely way in which you might die next year).
It seems like there are good reasons to take these numbers seriously, because Eliezer is probably the world expert on AI risk, and Hellman is probably the world expert on nuclear risk. However, there's a problem - Eliezer is an expert on AI risk because he believes that AI risk is a bigger risk than nuclear war. Similarly, Hellman chose to study nuclear risks and not AI risk I because he had a higher than average estimate of the threat of nuclear war.
It seems like it might be a good idea to know what the probability of each of these risks is. Is there a sensible way for these people to correct for the fact that the people studying these risks are those that have high estimate of them in the first place?