Out of curiosity, is there anywhere you've written about your object-level view on this? The EY post fleshes out what I would call strong consensus on LW thoroughly, is there some equivalence of this that you've put together?
I disagree with the idea that true things necessarily have explanations that are both convincing and short.
I don't think it's necessary for something to be true (there's no short, convincing explanation of eg quantum mechanics), but I think accurate forecasts tend to have such explanations (Tetlock's work strongly argues for this).
I agree there is a balance to be struck between losing your audience and being exhaustive, just that the vast majority of material I've read is on one side of this.
...On that point, have you seen any of my videos, and do you have th
This seems to violate common sense. Why would you think about this in log space? 99% and 1% are identical in if(>0) space, but they have massively different implications for how you think about a risk (just like 20 and 70% do!)
It's much more natural way how to think about it (cf eg TE Janes, Probability theory, examples in Chapter IV)
In this specific case of evaluating hypothesis, the distance in the logodds space indicates the strength the evidence you would need to see to update. Close distance implies you don't that much evidence to update between the positions (note the distance between 0.7 and 0.2 is closer than 0.9 and 0.99). If you need only a small amount of evidence to update, it is easy to imagine some other observer as reasonable as you had accumulated a bit or two so...
It's very strange to me that there isn't a central, accessible "101" version of the argument given how much has been written.
I don't think anyone should make false claims, and this is an uncharitable mischaracterization of what I wrote. I am telling you that, from the outside view, what LW/rationalism gets attention for is the "I am sure we are all going to die", which I don't think is a claim most of its members hold, and this repels the average person because it violates common sense.
The object level responses you gave are so minimal and dismissive that ...
Thanks for your reply. I welcome an object-level discussion, and appreciate people reading my thoughts and showing me where they think I went wrong.
Thank you for the reply. I agree we should try and avoid AI taking over the world.
On "doom through normal means"--I just think there are very plausibly limits to what superintelligence can do. "Persuasion, hacking, and warfare" (appreciate this is not a full version of the argument) don't seem like doom to me. I don't believe something can persuade generals to go to war in a short period of time, just because it's very intelligent. Reminds me of this.
On values--I think there's a conflation between us having ambitious goals, and whatever is actually b...
It strikes me that you're wearing a lot of risk beyond the face value bet. Even if we assume everyone is acting in good faith, there's likely credit risk across 10 different people promising a $100k+ payout (because most people don't have that much cash, and even among those who do, there's some likelihood of falling below that level of liquidity after a 5 year period). On your side, it looks like you're just sending people your side of the bet before resolution, so they wear zero credit risk, even though the credit risk on your end was smaller to begin wi... (read more)