Red team: Is existential security likely, assuming that we avoid existential catastrophe for a century or two?
Some reasons that I have to doubt that existential security is the default outcome we should expect:
Even superintelligent aligned AI might be flawed and fail catastrophically eventually
Vulnerable world hypothesis
Society is fairly unstable
Unregulated expansion throughout the galaxy may reduce extinction risk but may increase s-risks, and may not be desirable
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Red team: Is existential security likely, assuming that we avoid existential catastrophe for a century or two?
Some reasons that I have to doubt that existential security is the default outcome we should expect:
Even superintelligent aligned AI might be flawed and fail catastrophically eventually
Vulnerable world hypothesis
Society is fairly unstable
Unregulated expansion throughout the galaxy may reduce extinction risk but may increase s-risks, and may not be desirable