I would be interested in a version of this contest attempting to answer something like “If you believe Vasco that donations to SWP are better than torture, should you also believe that AI alignment is better than misalignment?”
I think that is what Richard Chappell is referring to when he mentions “radical skeptics” here. But I would be interested in a version of his post which defends the claim that EAs are reasonably justified in making the trade-offs we currently make (even if a radical skeptic would not be convinced of this defense).
I think that is what Richard Chappell is referring to when he mentions “radical skeptics” here. But I would be interested in a version of his post which defends the claim that EAs are reasonably justified in making the trade-offs we currently make (even if a radical skeptic would not be convinced of this defense).
Thanks Vasco, this is helpful.
I would be interested in a version of this contest attempting to answer something like “If you believe Vasco that donations to SWP are better than torture, should you also believe that AI alignment is better than misalignment?”
I think that is what Richard Chappell is referring to when he mentions “radical skeptics” here. But I would be interested in a version of his post which defends the claim that EAs are reasonably justified in making the trade-offs we currently make (even if a radical skeptic would not be convinced of this defense).
Hi Ben. That makes sense.
Likewise.