I am not really sure what this post is arguing against, or who it is arguing against. I feel like it just kind of implies that “cute pet name”s are low-status and therefore memetically unviable, which seems dubious to me (especially in the internet age people use all kinds of cute abbreviations).
I haven’t seen anyone actively advocate for using “foom” and I’ve most recently only seen it used by people not actually very central to the EA, Rationality or AI Alignment communities. I don’t think anyone is “trying to make it happen”, it’s just like the current most natural term we have for it. I don’t think anyone is super attached to it, and you can just propose a different name and then people might go with that one, or they might not, forecasting the adoption of terms is quite hard and I haven’t seen people have a lot of success with it.
it’s just like the current most natural term we have for it. I don’t think anyone is super attached to it, and you can just propose a different name and then people might go with that one,
It doesn’t seem natural at all to me. How about, e.g., “AI explosion”, “Runaway AI”, “AI-apocalypse”, or “catastrophic AI”? instead?
Forecasting the adoption of terms is quite hard and I haven’t seen people have a lot of success with it.
This is not quite about ‘forecasting the adoption of terms’ (not that you were explicitly making this case. It might be that FOOM does get adopted, but then used as a term to dismiss these concerns. While I think another term might be just as easily adopted but lead to greater credibility and sympathy.
None of those obviously mean the same thing (“runaway AI” might sort of gesture at it, but it’s still pretty ambiguous). Intelligence explosion is the thing it’s pointing at, though I think there are still a bunch of conflated connotations that don’t necessarily make sense as a single package.
I think “hard takeoff” is better if you’re talking about the high-level “thing that might happen”, and “recursive self improvement” is much clearer if you’re talking about the usually-implied mechanism by which you expect hard takeoff.
I use “AI Apocalypse” when talking about this to non-EA/LW friends and family. Didn’t really explicitly think about it, it was just the most natural choice of words in the context.
Hmm, yeah, I do think there is a countersignaling thing going on a bit with those terms, though I do find it hard to forecast whether that will help or harm the term overall. The modern internet and public opinion is a really weird place. Like, take the term MAGA, which sure took off and was really successful and feels quite similar to “foom”.
I agree MAGA is pretty cheesy, was going to mention it. OTOH it is a legit acronym. It also doesn’t have the same sort of counter-signaling feel to it as FOOM, to my ears. There’s no connotation that those people are elites (the opposite, obviously).
I am not really sure what this post is arguing against, or who it is arguing against
Tbh reacting initially to this Twitter poll seen by over 20,000 people. But it’s used fairly widely in my experience.
I haven’t seen anyone actively advocate for using “foom” and I’ve most recently only seen it used by people not actually very central to the EA, Rationality or AI Alignment communities.
I am not really sure what this post is arguing against, or who it is arguing against. I feel like it just kind of implies that “cute pet name”s are low-status and therefore memetically unviable, which seems dubious to me (especially in the internet age people use all kinds of cute abbreviations).
I haven’t seen anyone actively advocate for using “foom” and I’ve most recently only seen it used by people not actually very central to the EA, Rationality or AI Alignment communities. I don’t think anyone is “trying to make it happen”, it’s just like the current most natural term we have for it. I don’t think anyone is super attached to it, and you can just propose a different name and then people might go with that one, or they might not, forecasting the adoption of terms is quite hard and I haven’t seen people have a lot of success with it.
It doesn’t seem natural at all to me. How about, e.g., “AI explosion”, “Runaway AI”, “AI-apocalypse”, or “catastrophic AI”? instead?
This is not quite about ‘forecasting the adoption of terms’ (not that you were explicitly making this case. It might be that FOOM does get adopted, but then used as a term to dismiss these concerns. While I think another term might be just as easily adopted but lead to greater credibility and sympathy.
None of those obviously mean the same thing (“runaway AI” might sort of gesture at it, but it’s still pretty ambiguous). Intelligence explosion is the thing it’s pointing at, though I think there are still a bunch of conflated connotations that don’t necessarily make sense as a single package.
I think “hard takeoff” is better if you’re talking about the high-level “thing that might happen”, and “recursive self improvement” is much clearer if you’re talking about the usually-implied mechanism by which you expect hard takeoff.
I use “AI Apocalypse” when talking about this to non-EA/LW friends and family. Didn’t really explicitly think about it, it was just the most natural choice of words in the context.
Will add some clarifications. I don’t think that these cute pet names are low status. To me it seems almost the opposite, it feels like it borders on
if you are in the elite in-crowd you can use a silly term, counter-signaling that you are above formality
because this is ‘our genius idea’ we get to name it.
But maybe that’s just my reaction
Hmm, yeah, I do think there is a countersignaling thing going on a bit with those terms, though I do find it hard to forecast whether that will help or harm the term overall. The modern internet and public opinion is a really weird place. Like, take the term MAGA, which sure took off and was really successful and feels quite similar to “foom”.
I agree MAGA is pretty cheesy, was going to mention it. OTOH it is a legit acronym. It also doesn’t have the same sort of counter-signaling feel to it as FOOM, to my ears. There’s no connotation that those people are elites (the opposite, obviously).
Tbh reacting initially to this Twitter poll seen by over 20,000 people. But it’s used fairly widely in my experience.
Fwiw it seems to be used many many times on this forum
It’s in the title of an [e-book promoted by MIRI](The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate eBook )
Yudkowski uses the term in a recent podcast interview
But, to be fair, he didn’t use the term in his Time Magazine interview
It feels like “intillegence explosion” means pretty much the same thing and is strictly better in terms of readability and getting your point across.