Yes, I agree. I think what we need to spend our effort on is convincing people that AI development is dangerous and needs to be handled very cautiously if at all, not that superintelligence is imminent and there’s NO TIME. I don’t think the exact level of urgency or the exact level of risk matters much after like p(doom)=5. The thing we need to convince people of is how to handle the risk.
A lot of AI Safety messages expect the audience to fill in most of the interpretive details—“As you can see, this forecast is very well-researched. ASI is coming. You take it from here.”—when actually what they need to know is what those claims mean for them and what they can do.
Yes, I agree. I think what we need to spend our effort on is convincing people that AI development is dangerous and needs to be handled very cautiously if at all, not that superintelligence is imminent and there’s NO TIME. I don’t think the exact level of urgency or the exact level of risk matters much after like p(doom)=5. The thing we need to convince people of is how to handle the risk.
A lot of AI Safety messages expect the audience to fill in most of the interpretive details—“As you can see, this forecast is very well-researched. ASI is coming. You take it from here.”—when actually what they need to know is what those claims mean for them and what they can do.