= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
He is a bit overconfident in that regards, I agree.
Agreed, especially when compared to http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/gcr-report.pdf.
In response to
Top 9+2 myths about AI risk
Commenting on the first myth, Yudkowsky himself seems to be pretty sure of this when reading his comment here: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/so_far_my_respo.html. I know Yudkowsky's post is written after this LessWrong article, but it still seems relevant to mention.
In response to
A pessimistic view of quantum immortality
By the same logic of Quantum Immortality, shouldn't we expect never to fall asleep, since we can't observe ourselves while being asleep?
I was thinking about this post and thought up the following experiment. Suppose, by some quantum mechanism, Bob has a 50% probability of falling asleep for the next 8 hours and a 50% probability of staying awake for the next 8 hours. By the same logic as QI, should Bob expect (with 100% certainty) to be awake after 2 hours, since he cannot observe himself being asleep? I would say no. But then, doesn't QI fail as a result?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Agreed, especially when compared to http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/gcr-report.pdf.
Although, now that I think about it, this survey is about risks before 2100, so the 5% risk of superintelligent AI might be that low because some of the responders belief such AI not to happen before 2100. Still, it seems in sharp contrast with Yudkowsky's estimate.