I completely agree with what you just stated (although I have not read the post you linked), but I do not understand why it would undermine the broader point I mentioned in my comment.
If you thought Yudkowsky and Soares used overly confident language and would have taken the āQEDā as further evidence of that, but this particular example turns out not to have been written by Yudkowsky and Soares, thatās some evidence against your hypothesis. But instead of updating away a little, you seemed to dismiss that evidence and double down. (I think you originally replied to the original comment approvingly or at least non-critically, but then deleted that comment after I replied to it, but I could be misremembering that.)
For what itās worth, I think youāre right that Yudkowsky at least uses overly confident language sometimesāor I should say, is overly confident sometimes, because I think his language generally reflects his beliefsābut I wouldāve been surprised to see him use āQEDā in that way, which is why I reacted to the original comment here with skepticism and checked whether āQEDā actually appeared in the book (it didnāt). I take that to imply I was better calibrated than anyone who did not so react.
If you thought Yudkowsky and Soares used overly confident language and would have taken the āQEDā as further evidence of that, but this particular example turns out not to have been written by Yudkowsky and Soares, thatās some evidence against your hypothesis.
I agree.
But instead of updating away a little, you seemed to dismiss that evidence and double down.
I updated away a little, but negligibly so.
I think you originally replied to the original comment approvingly or at least non-critically, but then deleted that comment after I replied to it, but I could be misremembering that.
I deleted a comment which said something like the following. āThanks, Falk. I very much agreeā. I did not remember āQEDā was Robin paraphrasing. However, I think the āQEDā is still supposed to represent the level of confidence of the authors (in the book) in their arguments for a high risk of human extinction.
I wouldāve been surprised to see him use āQEDā in that way, which is why I reacted to the original comment here with skepticism and checked whether āQEDā actually appeared in the book (it didnāt).
Interesting. I would not have found the use of āQEDā surprising. To me it seems that Yudkowsky is often overly confident.
I remain open tobetsagainst short AI timelines, or what they supposedly imply, up to 10 k$. Do you see any that we could make that is good for both of us considering we could invest our money, and that you could take loans?
I completely agree with what you just stated (although I have not read the post you linked), but I do not understand why it would undermine the broader point I mentioned in my comment.
If you thought Yudkowsky and Soares used overly confident language and would have taken the āQEDā as further evidence of that, but this particular example turns out not to have been written by Yudkowsky and Soares, thatās some evidence against your hypothesis. But instead of updating away a little, you seemed to dismiss that evidence and double down. (I think you originally replied to the original comment approvingly or at least non-critically, but then deleted that comment after I replied to it, but I could be misremembering that.)
For what itās worth, I think youāre right that Yudkowsky at least uses overly confident language sometimesāor I should say, is overly confident sometimes, because I think his language generally reflects his beliefsābut I wouldāve been surprised to see him use āQEDā in that way, which is why I reacted to the original comment here with skepticism and checked whether āQEDā actually appeared in the book (it didnāt). I take that to imply I was better calibrated than anyone who did not so react.
I agree.
I updated away a little, but negligibly so.
I deleted a comment which said something like the following. āThanks, Falk. I very much agreeā. I did not remember āQEDā was Robin paraphrasing. However, I think the āQEDā is still supposed to represent the level of confidence of the authors (in the book) in their arguments for a high risk of human extinction.
Interesting. I would not have found the use of āQEDā surprising. To me it seems that Yudkowsky is often overly confident.
I remain open to bets against short AI timelines, or what they supposedly imply, up to 10 k$. Do you see any that we could make that is good for both of us considering we could invest our money, and that you could take loans?