You are assuming that AI could be massively economically beneficial (significantly) before it causes our extinction (or at the least, a global catastrophe). I don’t think this is likely, and this defeats a lot of your opposition to an indefinite pause.
If you don’t think AI will be economically significant before extinction, I’m curious whether you’d say that your view has been falsified if AI raises economic growth rates in the US to 5, 8, or 10% without us all dying. At what what point would you say that your model here was wrong?
(This isn’t a complete reply to your comment. I appreciate your good-faith engagement with my thesis.)
I don’t think AI could raise growth rates in the US >10% (annualised) for more than a year before rapid improvement in AI capabilities kicks in (from AI-based AI engineering speeding things up) and chaos ensues shortly (days—months) after (global catastrophe at minimum, probably extinction).
If you don’t think AI will be economically significant before extinction, I’m curious whether you’d say that your view has been falsified if AI raises economic growth rates in the US to 5, 8, or 10% without us all dying. At what what point would you say that your model here was wrong?
(This isn’t a complete reply to your comment. I appreciate your good-faith engagement with my thesis.)
I don’t think AI could raise growth rates in the US >10% (annualised) for more than a year before rapid improvement in AI capabilities kicks in (from AI-based AI engineering speeding things up) and chaos ensues shortly (days—months) after (global catastrophe at minimum, probably extinction).