Maybe because P(doom) ranges from 10% to 99% excludes many people that state a lower P(doom) or refuse to state a number.
Maybe because Will MacAskill sits at 10â20%, calling himself âoptimistic todayâ â but notes this is among the lowest estimates in serious circles implies people that state a lower number are not serious.
Those were my reasons to think of downvoting. In the end I didnât do it because at the time the post was already in the negatives.
There is a huge selection bias coming into play here, where people that appear in AI safety podcasts or use the expression P(doom) have self-selected for higher numbers than people that donât, and this is not addressed in the post.
Youâre making good points. The selection bias one especially. The corpus is AI safety-focused podcasts (AXRP, 80,000 Hours, The Inside View, etc.), so it skews toward people who already take alignment seriously. LeCun, Ng, and others who think the framing is wrong donât typically appear on those shows, and when they do theyâre pushing back on the premise rather than giving a number.
The â10 to 99%â framing was honest about whatâs in this corpus but youâre right that it implies a complete range. The âMacAskill among the lowest in serious circlesâ line was sloppy. That phrasing came from his own framing on 80k Hours but it carries an implication I didnât intend.
If anyone has pointers to AI safety podcast episodes with people in the under-5% range or rejecting the framing entirely, Iâd appreciate it. Thatâs a real gap in coverage I should address.
Maybe because P(doom) ranges from 10% to 99% excludes many people that state a lower P(doom) or refuse to state a number.
Maybe because Will MacAskill sits at 10â20%, calling himself âoptimistic todayâ â but notes this is among the lowest estimates in serious circles implies people that state a lower number are not serious.
Those were my reasons to think of downvoting. In the end I didnât do it because at the time the post was already in the negatives.
There is a huge selection bias coming into play here, where people that appear in AI safety podcasts or use the expression P(doom) have self-selected for higher numbers than people that donât, and this is not addressed in the post.
Okâthatâs fair. Thereâs also the issue that doom means very different things to different people.
Youâre making good points. The selection bias one especially.
The corpus is AI safety-focused podcasts (AXRP, 80,000 Hours,
The Inside View, etc.), so it skews toward people who already
take alignment seriously. LeCun, Ng, and others who think the
framing is wrong donât typically appear on those shows, and
when they do theyâre pushing back on the premise rather than
giving a number.
The â10 to 99%â framing was honest about whatâs in this corpus
but youâre right that it implies a complete range. The âMacAskill
among the lowest in serious circlesâ line was sloppy. That
phrasing came from his own framing on 80k Hours but it carries
an implication I didnât intend.
If anyone has pointers to AI safety podcast episodes with people
in the under-5% range or rejecting the framing entirely, Iâd
appreciate it. Thatâs a real gap in coverage I should address.