i) I bet Bostrom thinks the odds of a collective AI safety effort of achieving its goal is better than 1%, which would itself be enough to avoid the Pascal’s Mugging situation.
ii) This is a fallback position from which you can defend the work if someone thinks it almost certainly won’t work. I don’t think we should do that, instead we should argue that we can likely solve the problem. But I see the temptation.
iii) I don’t think it’s clear you should always reject a Pascal’s Mugging (or if you should, it may only be because there are more promising options for enormous returns than giving it to the mugger).
Two things:
i) I bet Bostrom thinks the odds of a collective AI safety effort of achieving its goal is better than 1%, which would itself be enough to avoid the Pascal’s Mugging situation.
ii) This is a fallback position from which you can defend the work if someone thinks it almost certainly won’t work. I don’t think we should do that, instead we should argue that we can likely solve the problem. But I see the temptation.
iii) I don’t think it’s clear you should always reject a Pascal’s Mugging (or if you should, it may only be because there are more promising options for enormous returns than giving it to the mugger).