I think it would be nicer if you say your P(Doom|AGI in 2070) instead of P(Doom|AGI by 2070), because the second one implicitly takes into account your timelines.
I disagree. (At least, if defining ânicerâ as âmore useful to the stated goals for the prizesâ.)
As an interested observer, I think itâs an advantage to take timelines into account. Specifically, I think the most compelling way to argue for a particular P(Catastrophe|AGI by 20__) to the FF prize evaluators will be:
states and argues for a timelines distribution in terms of P(AGI in 20__) for a continuous range of 20__s
states and argues for a conditional-catastrophe function in terms of P(Catastrophe|AGI in 20__) over the range
integrates the product over the range to get a P(Catastrophe|AGI by 20__)
argues that the final number isnât excessively sensitive to small shifts in the timelines distribution or the catastrophe-conditional-on-year function.
An argument which does all of this successfully is significantly more useful to informing the FFâs actions than an argument which only defends a single P(Catastrophe|20__).
I do agree that it would be nice to have the years line up, but as above I do expect a winning argument for P(Catastrophe|AGI by 2070) to more-or-less explicitly inform a P(Catastrophe|AGI by 2043), so I donât expect a huge loss.
(Not speaking for the prizes organizers/âevaluators, just for myself.)
I disagree. (At least, if defining ânicerâ as âmore useful to the stated goals for the prizesâ.)
As an interested observer, I think itâs an advantage to take timelines into account. Specifically, I think the most compelling way to argue for a particular P(Catastrophe|AGI by 20__) to the FF prize evaluators will be:
states and argues for a timelines distribution in terms of P(AGI in 20__) for a continuous range of 20__s
states and argues for a conditional-catastrophe function in terms of P(Catastrophe|AGI in 20__) over the range
integrates the product over the range to get a P(Catastrophe|AGI by 20__)
argues that the final number isnât excessively sensitive to small shifts in the timelines distribution or the catastrophe-conditional-on-year function.
An argument which does all of this successfully is significantly more useful to informing the FFâs actions than an argument which only defends a single P(Catastrophe|20__).
I do agree that it would be nice to have the years line up, but as above I do expect a winning argument for P(Catastrophe|AGI by 2070) to more-or-less explicitly inform a P(Catastrophe|AGI by 2043), so I donât expect a huge loss.
(Not speaking for the prizes organizers/âevaluators, just for myself.)