I’ll clarify the distinction by giving examples of arguments that sit near the ends of the general vs specific spectrum.
Here’s a highly specific argument:
The “highly specific argument” references Christiano’s “What failure looks like,” which describes two different scenarios that still leave a bunch of things to our imagination.
The point being, on the spectrum from general to specific, I’d argue that we aren’t yet at at the stage where we can make “highly specific” arguments with much confidence. (Partly because few people are conceptualizing TAI scenarios in much detail and because the ones that do don’t seem to reach much of a consensus.)
I think “not having consensus over highly specific arguments for the longtermist importance of AI governance” is a challenging situation to be in because a lot of potential efforts are bottlenecked by figuring out what area of the problem is the most urgent to address.
(All of this mostly underscores what you’re saying, and it’s an obvious point. Still, I thought I’d make the comment because I squinted my eyes at the phrase “here’s a highly specific argument.”)
The “highly specific argument” references Christiano’s “What failure looks like,” which describes two different scenarios that still leave a bunch of things to our imagination.
The point being, on the spectrum from general to specific, I’d argue that we aren’t yet at at the stage where we can make “highly specific” arguments with much confidence. (Partly because few people are conceptualizing TAI scenarios in much detail and because the ones that do don’t seem to reach much of a consensus.)
I think “not having consensus over highly specific arguments for the longtermist importance of AI governance” is a challenging situation to be in because a lot of potential efforts are bottlenecked by figuring out what area of the problem is the most urgent to address.
(All of this mostly underscores what you’re saying, and it’s an obvious point. Still, I thought I’d make the comment because I squinted my eyes at the phrase “here’s a highly specific argument.”)
Thanks, I agree with all of this