You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Emile comments on Q&A with Abram Demski on risks from AI - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: XiXiDu 17 January 2012 09:43AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Emile 17 January 2012 01:24:37PM *  9 points [-]

Thanks a lot for your work on all this Xixidu, it's nice to have all these answers from a wide variety of experts. Thanks also to Demski and the others, of course.

It's very difficult to give an actual probability estimate for this question because of the way "badly done AI" pushes around the probability. (By definition, there should be some negative consequences, or it wasn't done badly enough...) However, I'll naively multiply the factors I've given, with some very rough numbers:

P(#0)P(#1)P(#2)P(#3)P(#4)

= .1 * .1 * .9 * .1 * .5 * .1

= .000045

I described a fairly narrow scenario, so we might expect significant probability mass to come from other possibilities. However, I think it's the most plausible. So, keeping in mind that it's very rough, let's say .0001.

There's an extra "* .1" in your expression, between your .9 and the .5, resulting in an extra zero, so your rough final tally should be something more like .001.

Comment author: abramdemski 17 January 2012 07:24:56PM 7 points [-]

Oh, gosh. Xixidu, could you correct that?

Comment author: XiXiDu 17 January 2012 07:33:44PM 1 point [-]

Oh, gosh. Xixidu, could you correct that?

Done. Sorry for waiting so long, should have fixed it right away. Thanks to Emile for noticing it.