Ember

• EmberAug 16, 2022, 9:50 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Linch’s comment on: The Cred­i­bil­ity of Apoca­lyp­tic Claims: A Cri­tique of Techno-Fu­tur­ism within Ex­is­ten­tial Risk

  This is a good point I will add when I get the chance

• EmberAug 16, 2022, 9:49 PM

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: David Mathers🔸’s comment on: The Cred­i­bil­ity of Apoca­lyp­tic Claims: A Cri­tique of Techno-Fu­tur­ism within Ex­is­ten­tial Risk

  I am using apocalyptic broadly, such that it applies both to the existential risk and to global catastrophic risk. IMPO if a nuclear war kills 99% of the population it is still apocalyptic.

  I think that distinguishing between global catastrophic risk and existential risk is extremely difficult. While climate scientists don’t generally predict human extinction I think this is largely because of pressure to not appear alarmist and due to state and corporate interests to downplay and ignore climate change. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem like theirs any particular forces working to downplay AI risk.

• EmberAug 16, 2022, 9:40 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ColdButtonIssues’s comment on: The Cred­i­bil­ity of Apoca­lyp­tic Claims: A Cri­tique of Techno-Fu­tur­ism within Ex­is­ten­tial Risk

  Anthropic shadow certainly creates some degree of uncertainty, however, it seems to apply less in this case than it might in say the case of nuclear war. (I’m actually about to submit another submission about anthropic shadow in that case) It seems like AI development wasn’t slowed down by a few events but rather due to overarching complexities in its development. It’s my understanding that anthropic shadow is mostly applicable in cases where there have been close calls, and is less applicable in non-linear cases. However, I might be mistaken.

  The conclusion doesn’t read this way to me, as to me the statement “apocalyptic claims made by Christians” doesn’t imply that all Christians make apocalyptic claims. However, it does seem to have created unnecessary confusion, I will add the word some.

• EmberAug 16, 2022, 8:31 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: Go Repub­li­can, Young EA!

  100% agree. I just wanted to add that insofar as Donald Trump both killed the Iran nuclear deal, and said he didn’t care if Saudi-Arabia got nukes it seems like the republican party is also substantially worse on nuclear war.(while Biden failing to reestablish the deal is a failure, not a comparable failing) Additionally, Donald Trump claimed he’d threaten nuclear war with Putin over Ukraine, so we might genuinely all be dead right now if he’d won in 2020.

• EmberAug 16, 2022, 7:54 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Are we already past the precipice?

  I think this is caused by two factors, 1) longtermism has decided to distinguish between existential risks and global catastrophic risks, and 2) there is a much stronger general culture of denial around nuclear risk than any other risk.

  When in the Precipice(which I take to have been broadly read) Toby Ord says that AI is a ¹⁄₁₀ risk and nuclear war and climate change are both 1/​1000 and does so essentially on the basis that he views the later two as survivable this created the justification to write them off.(this isn’t to say this is where the trend began)

  If you talk to most people they just don’t believe nuclear war is likely, as a result, it seems like nuclear war and unaligned artificial intelligence are both treated as being speculative, except nuclear war has a long history of not happening. This is of course nonsense, as nuclear weapons exist right now.

The Cred­i­bil­ity of Apoca­lyp­tic Claims: A Cri­tique of Techno-Fu­tur­ism within Ex­is­ten­tial Risk