This is a really good debate on AI doom -- I thought the optimistic side was a good model that I (and maybe others) should spend more time thinking about (mostly about the mechanistic explanation vs extrapolation of trends and induction vs empiricist framings), even though I think I disagreed with a lot of it on an object level: 

Saying that we should donate there as opposed to AMF, for example, I would argue is trolleying. You're making tradeoffs and implicitly saying this is worth as much as that. Perhaps you're giving lower trade offs than the pain pleasure stuff, but you didn't really mention these, and they seem important to the end claim "and for these reasons, you should donate to shrimp welfare." 

I really don't like when people downvote so heavily without giving reasons - think this is nicely argued! 

One issue I do have is that Bob Fischer, the conductor of the Rethink study, warned about exactly what you are sorta doing here in being like ah now we can use x amount of shrimp and saying we can trolly problem a human for that many. This is just one contention, but I think the point is important and people willing to take weird/ controversial ideas seriously (especially here!) should take it more seriously! 

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/11/austrian-economics-and-ai-scaling.html

A good short post by Tyler Cowen on anti-AI Doomerism. 

I recommend taking a minute to steelman the position before you decide to upvote or downvote this. Even if you disagree with the position object level, there is still value to knowing the models where you may be most mistaken. 

I don’t know why you’re getting so many downvotes (okay fine I do it’s because of your tone). Nevertheless, this is an awesome post.

Tyler Cowen often has really good takes (even some good stuff against AI as an x-risk!), but this was not one of them: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/10/a-funny-feature-of-the-ai-doomster-argument.html

Title: A funny feature of the AI doomster argument

If you ask them whether they are short the market, many will say there is no way to short the apocalypse.  But of course you can benefit from pending signs of deterioration in advance.  At the very least, you can short some markets, or go long volatility, and then send those profits to Somalia to mitigate suffering for a few years before the whole world ends.

Still, in a recent informal debate at the wonderful Roots of Progress conference in Berkeley, many of the doomsters insisted to me that “the end” will come as a complete surprise, given the (supposed) deceptive abilities of AGI.

But note what they are saying.  If markets will not fall at least partially in advance, they are saying the passage of time, and the events along the way, will not persuade anyone.  They are saying that further contemplation of their arguments will not persuade any marginal investors, whether directly or indirectly.  They are predicting that their own ideas will not spread any further.

I take those as signs of a pretty weak argument.  “It will never get more persuasive than it is right now!”  “There’s only so much evidence for my argument, and never any more!”  Of course, by now most intelligent North Americans with an interest in these issues have heard these arguments and they are most decidedly not persuaded.

There is also a funny epistemic angle here.  If the next say twenty years of evidence and argumentation are not going to persuade anyone else at the margin, why should you be holding this view right now?  What is it that you know, that is so resistant to spread and persuasion over the course of the next twenty years?

I would say that to ask such questions is to answer them.

Thanks! Honestly, I think this kind of project needs to get much more appreciation and should be done more by those who are very confident in their positions and would like to steelman the other side. I also often hear people very confident about their beliefs and truly have no idea what the bets counterarguments are--maybe this uncommon, but I went to an in-person rationalist meetup like last week, and the people were really confident but haven't heard of a bunch of these counterarguments, which I though is not at all in the LessWrong spirit. That interaction was one of my inspirations for the post. 

I think I agree, but I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how you would evaluate arguments so much differently than I am now. I would say my method is pretty different than that of twitter debates (in many ways, I am very sympathetic and influenced by the LessWrong approach). I think I could have made a list of cruxes of each argument, but I didn't want the post to be too long -- much fewer would read it which is why I recommended that people first get a grasp on the general arguments for AI being an existential risk right at the beginning (adding a credence or range, i think, is pretty silly given that people should be able to assign their own, and I'm just some random undergrad on the internet). 

1. Yep - I totally agree. I don't personally take the argument super seriously (though I attempted to steelman what that argument as I think other people take it very seriously). I was initially going to respond to every argument, but I didn't want to make a 40+ minute post. I also did qualify that claim a bunch (as I did with others like the intractability argument)
2. Fair point. I do think the LeCun argument misunderstands a bunch about different aspects of the debate, but he's probably smarter than me. 
3. I think I'm gonna have to just disagree here. While I defintelely think finding cruxes are extremely important (and this sometimes requires much back and forth), there is a certain type of way arguments can go back and forth that I tend to think has little (and should have little) influence on beliefs -- I'm open to being wrong, though! 

Different but related point: 

I think, generally, I largely agree with you on many things you've said and just appreciate the outside view more. A modest epistemology of sorts. Even if I don't find an argument super compelling, if a bunch of people that I think are pretty smart do (Yann LeCun has done some groundbreaking work in AI stuff, so that seems like a reason to take him seriously), I'm still gonna write about it. This is another reason why I didn't put credences on these arguments -- let the people decide! 

Thanks for the comment; I appreciate the response! One thing: I would say generally that people should avoid assuming other motives/ bad epistemics (i.e. motivated reasoming) unless pretty obvious (which I don't think is the case here) and can be resolved by pointing it out. This usually doesn't help anyone any parties get any closer to the truth, and if anything, it creates bad faith among people leading them to actually have other motives (which is bad, I think). 

I also would be interested in what you think of my response to the argument that the commenter made. 

I laughed at your first line, so thank you for that lol. I would love to hear more about why you prefer to collect models over arguments because i don't think I intuitively get the reasons for why this would be better -- to be fair, I haven't spent enough time thinking about it probably. Any references you like on arguments for this would be super helpful! 

1. I agree that many (even simple) arguments can be split up into many pieces -- this is a good point. I would however say that there are still more and less complicated (ie more premises with lower probabilities) arguments that should receive lower credences. I assume that you will agree with this, and maybe you can let me know precisely the way to get the AGI doom argument off the ground with the least amount of contingent propositions -- that would be really helpful. 
2. Totally agree -- it's pretty hard to determine what will be necessary and this could lead to argument sloppiness. Though, I don't think we should throw our hands in the air, say the argument is sloppy, and ignore it (I am not saying that you are or plan to do this for the record) -- I only mean to say that it should count for something, and I leave it up to the reader to figure out what.
   1.  One separate thing i would say, though, is that the asterisk by that indicated (this was said at the beginning of the section) that it was not necessary for the proposition AI being an existential threat -- it only helps the argument. This is true for many things on that list. 
3. Yea -- you're totally right. They're not independent propositions making it pretty complicated (I did briefly not the fact that they had to be independent and thought it was clear enough that they weren't, but maybe not). I agree this is really difficult to estimate probabilities on the basis of this, and I recommend big error bars and less certainty! 

Thanks for the helpful feedback, though!