I definitely take your point about âI used a narrow definition of AGI because I think thatâs where actionable analysis can be made, but I agree its not necessarily enough.â â I think I could have worded that better.
What I meant was that I think the world I discuss is plausible and we can get some actionable analysis from it, which can get us some way to identifying what actions may be more robust across different scenarios. (I agree we wouldnât want to discuss scenarios that are impossible.)
It seems the difference in our views here is that I think itâs possible institutions and consumer preferences are quite sticky, at least for a little while; e.g. society imposes that humans have to be final decision-makers for longer than youâd expect (perhaps because legacy rules persist or people strongly prefer slower human-in-the-loop processes, or something else), or consumers really want âtraditionalâ food that they know, like, and trust regardless of their economic position. If you think thereâs a 0% chance that can happen, then it makes sense not to agree with what I describe above.
I probably wonât carry on replying here, but I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your view, it made me think about the framing of my post and my viewpoint a lot more.
Thanks for your reply!
I definitely take your point about âI used a narrow definition of AGI because I think thatâs where actionable analysis can be made, but I agree its not necessarily enough.â â I think I could have worded that better.
What I meant was that I think the world I discuss is plausible and we can get some actionable analysis from it, which can get us some way to identifying what actions may be more robust across different scenarios. (I agree we wouldnât want to discuss scenarios that are impossible.)
It seems the difference in our views here is that I think itâs possible institutions and consumer preferences are quite sticky, at least for a little while; e.g. society imposes that humans have to be final decision-makers for longer than youâd expect (perhaps because legacy rules persist or people strongly prefer slower human-in-the-loop processes, or something else), or consumers really want âtraditionalâ food that they know, like, and trust regardless of their economic position. If you think thereâs a 0% chance that can happen, then it makes sense not to agree with what I describe above.
I probably wonât carry on replying here, but I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your view, it made me think about the framing of my post and my viewpoint a lot more.