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.

PhilGoetz comments on What we could learn from the frequency of near-misses in the field of global risks (Happy Bassett-Bordne day!) - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: turchin 28 October 2015 06:28PM

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

Comments (9)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 29 October 2015 03:17:14AM *  -1 points [-]

Such near-misses should be divided into those with natural causes, and those caused by humans. Sometimes the distinction is fuzzy; for instance, the Lyme epidemic in the US was pretty obviously caused by covering the northeast US with lawns, killing all the wolves, and severely restricting hunting, so that we have a deer population several times larger than a century ago in more regular contact with humans.

My concern is that the number of human-caused near-misses has increased over the past century, and it's hard to imagine this stopping or even slowing. What plausible scenario can give free intelligent life on Earth a life expectancy of another thousand years?

Comment author: turchin 02 November 2015 02:05:38PM 0 points [-]

If safety level drastically rise, it will prevent future near-misses. But to do it we need some kind of fail-safe and high-intelligent control mechanism. It easy to say that it will be AI, but we know that its creation has its own risks.

I have a map of plans of x-risks prevention, which include all known ideas how to prevent such risks, but I not sure that it will work.