I’m not sure. I definitely think there is a chance that if I earnestly believed those things, I would go fairly crazy. I empathize with those who, in my opinion, are overreacting.
I think this is pretty telling. I’ve also had a family member say a similar thing. If your reasoning is (at least partly) motivated by wanting to stay sane, you probably aren’t engaging with the arguments impartially.
I would bet a decent amount of money that you would not in fact, go crazy. Look to history to see how few people went crazy over the threat of nuclear annihilation in the Cold War (and all the other things C.S. Lewis refers to in the linked quote).
I don’t think my reasoning is around wanting to stay sane at all. Most of my reasoning revolves around base rates, examining current systems, and assessing current progress.
I think I’m in this peculiar position where I have ~medium (maybe many reading this would consider them to be long) timelines and fairly low “p(doom)”, and I still think AI risk is among the most important things to work on.
I don’t think many people biased in such a way are going to even be particularly aware of it when making arguments, let alone admit to it. It’s mostly a hidden bias. You really don’t want it to be true because of how you think it will affect you if it was.
Thinking AI Risk is among the most important things to work on is one thing. Thinking your life depends on minimising it is another.
I don’t think the probability of AGI this year is above 10%, nor do I think that doom, given AGI is above 10%
But a lot of informed people do (i.e. an aggregation of forecasts). What would you do if you did believe both of those things?
I’m not sure. I definitely think there is a chance that if I earnestly believed those things, I would go fairly crazy. I empathize with those who, in my opinion, are overreacting.
I think this is pretty telling. I’ve also had a family member say a similar thing. If your reasoning is (at least partly) motivated by wanting to stay sane, you probably aren’t engaging with the arguments impartially.
I would bet a decent amount of money that you would not in fact, go crazy. Look to history to see how few people went crazy over the threat of nuclear annihilation in the Cold War (and all the other things C.S. Lewis refers to in the linked quote).
I don’t think my reasoning is around wanting to stay sane at all. Most of my reasoning revolves around base rates, examining current systems, and assessing current progress.
I think I’m in this peculiar position where I have ~medium (maybe many reading this would consider them to be long) timelines and fairly low “p(doom)”, and I still think AI risk is among the most important things to work on.
I don’t think many people biased in such a way are going to even be particularly aware of it when making arguments, let alone admit to it. It’s mostly a hidden bias. You really don’t want it to be true because of how you think it will affect you if it was.
Thinking AI Risk is among the most important things to work on is one thing. Thinking your life depends on minimising it is another.
I obviously can’t prove I am not biased in such a way, but I don’t think that is a fair assumption.