= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on A Scholarly AI Risk Wiki - 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 (56)
We have to sometimes be allowed to have the second discussion. There sometimes has to be a discussion among those who agree that X is an issue, about what to do about it. We can't always return to the discussion of whether X is an issue at all, because there's always someone who dissents. Save it for the threads which are about your dissent.
<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.