<author>

I'm voicing my dissent because the amount of confidence that it takes to justify the proposal is not rational as I see it.

I am in support of collecting a list of failure scenarios. I am not in support of making an independent wiki on the subject. I'd need to see a considerable argument of confidence be made before I'd understand why to put all this effort into it instead of, say, simply making a list in LessWrong's existing wiki.

<author>

I like being convinced that my preferential allocation of time is non-optimal. That way I can allocate my time to something more constructive. I vastly prefer more rational courses of action to less rational courses of action.

I of course advocate understanding failure scenarios, but the bronze age wasn't really the time to be contemplating grey goo countermeasures. Even if they'd want to at that time, they would have had nowhere near the competence to be doing anything other than writing science fiction. Which is what I see such a wiki at this point in time as being.

As an aspiring AI coder, suppose I were to ask, for any given article on the wiki, for any given failure scenario, to see some example code that would produce such a failure, so that, while coding my own AI, I am able to more coherently avoid that particular failure. As it is my understanding that nothing of the sort is even close to being able to be produced (to not even touch upon the security concerns), I do not see how such a wiki would be useful at this point in (lack of?) development.