I’m not trying to imply it, I’m trying to state it clearly. You dismiss the arguments made in the book as not being empirical. If you haven’t read your post, here are some quotes indicating where you do this explicitly: ”the chapter presents effectively zero empirical research” “one might expect Y&S to substantiate their case with empirical evidence” ″lack of empirical evidence”
I did not write the post, or read the book. However, based on the podcasts with Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares I have listened to, I would also like them to focus more on empirical evidence.
Do you see another bet we could make about AI risk? I remain open tobetsagainst short AI timelines, or what they supposedly imply, up to 10 k$. I am also open the increasing the stakes of our bet.
I’m not trying to imply it, I’m trying to state it clearly. You dismiss the arguments made in the book as not being empirical. If you haven’t read your post, here are some quotes indicating where you do this explicitly:
”the chapter presents effectively zero empirical research”
“one might expect Y&S to substantiate their case with empirical evidence”
″lack of empirical evidence”
I did not write the post, or read the book. However, based on the podcasts with Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares I have listened to, I would also like them to focus more on empirical evidence.
Do you see another bet we could make about AI risk? I remain open to bets against short AI timelines, or what they supposedly imply, up to 10 k$. I am also open the increasing the stakes of our bet.