Students in CS 2881r: AI safety did a number of fantastic projects, see https://boazbk.github.io/mltheoryseminar/student_projects.html 

Also I finally updated the youtube channel with the final lecture as well as the oral presentations for projects, see 

In what way this is a call to quietism?

 I do not mean that you should be complacent!  And as I said, this does not mean you should let governments, and companies, including my own, off the hook! 

Thank you. I am not an economist, but I think that it is unlikely for the entire economy to operate on the model of an AI lab whereby every year you keep just pumping all gains back into AI.
Both investors and the general public have a limited patience, and they will want to see some benefits. While our democracy is not perfect, public opinion has much more impact today than the opinions of factory workers in England in the 1700's, and so I do hope that we won't see the pattern where things became worse before they were better. But I agree that it is not sure thing by any means.

However, if AI does indeed still grow in capability and economic growth is significantly above the 2% per capita it has been stuck on for the last ~120 years it would be a very big deal and would open up new options for increasing the social safety net. Many of the dillemas - e.g. how do we reduce the deficit without slashing benefits, etc. - will just disappear with that level of growth. So at least economically, it would be possible for the U.S. to have Scandinavian levels of social services. (Whether the U.S. political system will deliver that is another matter, but at least from the last few years it seems that even the Republican party is not shy about big spending.)

This actually goes to the bottom line, is that I think how AI ends up playing out will end up depending not so much on the economic but on the political factors, which is part of what I wrote about in "Machines of Faithful Obedience". If AI enables authoritarian government then we could have a scenario with very few winners and a vast majority of losers. But if we keep (and hopefully strenghten) our democracy then I am much more optimistic about how the benefits from AI will be spread. 

I don't think there is something fundamental about AI that makes it obvious in which way it will shift the balance of power between governments and individuals. Sometimes the same technology could have either impact. For example the printing press had the impact of reducing state power in Europe and increasing it in China. So I think it's still up in the air how it will play out. Actually this is one of the reasons I am happy that so far AI's development has been in the private sector, and aimed at making money and marketing to consumers, than in developed in government, and focused on military applications, as it well could have been in another timeline.

Yes, in my addendum I said that a more accurate title would have been "I believe that you will most likely will be OK, and in any case should spend most of your time acting under this assumption."

Comparing nuclear risks to AI is a bit unfair - the reason we can give such details calculations of kinetic force etc.. is because nuclear warheads are real, actually deployed, and can be launched at a moment's notice. With ASI you cannot do calculations of exactly how many people it would kill precisely because it does not exist. 

I am not advocating that policy makers should have taken an "either it doesn't happen or we all die" mentality for nuclear policy. (While this is not my field, I did do some work in the nuclear disarmament space.) 

But I would say that this was (and is) the mindset for the typical person living in an American urban center. (If you live in such an area, you can go to nukemap and see what would be the impact of one or more ~500kt warheads-  of the type carried by Russian R-36 missiles - in your vicinity.) 

People have been living their lives under the threat that it is possible that they and everyone they know could be extinguished in a moment's notice. I think the ordinary U.S. and Russian citizen probably should have done more and care more to promote nuclear disarmament. But I don't think they (we) should live in constant state of fear either.

I think we are in agreement! It is definitely easier for me, given that I believe things are likely to be OK, but I still assign non-trivial likelihood to the possiblity they will not. But regardless of what you believe is more likely, I agree you should both (a) do what is feasible for you to have positive impact in the domains you can influence, and (b) keep being productive, happy, and sane without obsessing on factors you do not control.

Thank you for engaging. I now understand better your point. 
The set of things people are worried about AI is very large, and I agree I addressed only part, and maybe not the most important part of what people are worried about. I also agree that "experts" disagree with each other, so you can't just trust the expert. I can offer my thoughts of how to think of AI, and maybe they will make sense to some people, but they should make their own judgement and not take things on faith.

If I understand correctly, you want for the sake of discussions, to consider the world where AGI takes 20+ years to achieve. People have different definitions of AGI, but it seems safe to say this world would be one where progress significantly undershoots the expectations of many people in the AI space and AI companies.  There is a sense of positive feedback loop - I imagine that if AI undershoots expectations then funding will also be squeezed and so this could lead to even more slowdown - and so in such a world it's possible that over the next 20 years AI's impact, for both good and bad, will just not be extremely significant.

If we talk about "prosaic harms" we should also talk about "prosaic benefits". If we take the view of AI as a "normal technology" then our past experience with technologies was that overall the benefits are larger than the harms. Over the long run, we have seen a pretty smooth and consistent increase in life expectency and other metrics of wellbeing. So if AI does not radically reshape society, the baseline expectation should be that it has overall a positive impact. AI may well have positive impact even if it does radically shape humanity (I happen to believe it will) but we have less prior data to base on in that case.

Most exposition of existential risk I have seen count nuclear war as an example of a risk. Bostrom (2001) certainly considers nuclear war as an existential risk. What I meant by it either happens or doesn't is that since 1945 there has been no nuclear weapon in war, so the average person "did not feel it" and given the U.S. and Russian posture, it is quite possible that a usage by one of them against the other will lead to a total nuclear war. 

Also while it was possible to take precautions, like a fallout shelter, the plan to build fallout shelters for most U.S. citizens fizzled and was defunded in the 1970s. So I think it is fair to say that most Americans and Russians did not spend most of their time thinking or actively preparing for nuclear holocaust. 

I am not necessarily saying it was the right thing: maybe the fallout shelters should not have been defunded, and should have been built, and people should have advocated for that. But I think it would still have been wise for them to try to live their daily lives without been gripped by fear.

LOL ... I have to say that "crystal wishing division" sounds way cooler than "alignment team" :)

However, I think the analogy is wrong on several levels. This is not about "lobbying to go further into the nebula". If anything, people working in alignment are about steering the ship or controlling the crystal minds to ensure we are safe in the nebula.

To get back to AI,  as I wrote, this note is not about dissuading people from holding governments and companies accountable. I am not trying to convince you to not advocate for AI regulations, for AI pauses, or trying to upsell you a chatgpt subscription. You can and should exercise your rights to advocate for the positions you believe in. 

Like the case of climate change, people can have different opinions on what society should do and how it should trade off risks vs. progress. I am not trying to change your mind on the tradeoffs for AI. I am merely offering some advice, which you can take or leave as you see fit, for how to think about this in your everyday life.

I do not blame young people or claim that they are "unwise" or "over reacting". I care a lot about what the future will look like for young people, also because I have two kids myself (ages 13 and 19).

I am really not sure what does it mean to "place sufficiently diverse bets to hedge their risk in all of the possible worlds". If that means to build a bunker or something, then I am definitely not doing that. 

I do not see AI as likely to create a permanent underclass, nor make it so that it would not make sense to date or raise a family.  As I said before, I think that the most likely outcome is that AI will lift the quality of life of all humans in a way similar to the lift from pre industrial times. But even in those pre industrial times, people still raised families.

I believe that it is not going to be the case that "if you get it wrong, there's unlikely to be a safety net" or "any one of us may get lucky in the near after". Rather I believe that how AI will turn out for all of us is going to be highly correlated: not necessarily 100% correlation (either we all get lucky or we all get very unlucky) but not that far from it either. In fact, I thought that the belief on this strong correlation of AI outcomes was the one thing that MIRI folks and I had in common, but maybe I was wrong.