I want to try out the newly updated claims feature! Here are some related claims, I invite you to vote your probabilities.
Suppose Sam Bankman-Fried is imprisoned for 25 years. After that time, he will be a decent, law-abiding member of society, who is safe to release from prison.Had the prison sentence for Bankman-Fried been life in prison, in this counterfactual world he would not have committed the crimes in the first place.
(This can be for whatever reason you think, such as because his expected value calculations would’ve changed, or because he would’ve taken more care around these particular behaviors, or any other reason you please.)
I can easily imagine an argument that: SBF would be safe to release in 25 years, or for that matter tomorrow, not because he’d be decent and law-abiding, but because no one would trust him and the only crimes he’s likely to (or did) commit depend on people trusting him. I’m sure this isn’t entirely true, but it does seem like being world-infamous would have to mitigate his danger quite a bit.
More generally — and bringing it back closer to the OP — I feel interested in when, and to what extent, future harms by criminals or norm-breakers can be prevented just by making sure that everyone knows their track record and can decide not to trust them.
I think having an easily-findable reputation makes it harder to do crimes, but being famous makes it easier. Many people are naive & gullible, or are themselves willing to do crime, and would like to work with him. I expect him to get opportunities for new ventures on leaving prison, with unsavory sorts.
I definitely support track-records being more findable publicly. Of course there’s some balance in that the person who publishes it has a lot of power over the person being written about, and if they exaggerate it or write it hyperbolically then they can impose a lot of inappropriate costs on the person that they’re in a bad position to push back on.
Suppose Sam Bankman-Fried is imprisoned for 25 years. After that time, he will be a decent, law-abiding member of society, who is safe to release from prison.
I voted 75% because taken literally I think in 25 years AI will be so advanced that he won’t have much of an ability to impact the world at all 🤓
I want to try out the newly updated claims feature! Here are some related claims, I invite you to vote your probabilities.
(This can be for whatever reason you think, such as because his expected value calculations would’ve changed, or because he would’ve taken more care around these particular behaviors, or any other reason you please.)
I can easily imagine an argument that: SBF would be safe to release in 25 years, or for that matter tomorrow, not because he’d be decent and law-abiding, but because no one would trust him and the only crimes he’s likely to (or did) commit depend on people trusting him. I’m sure this isn’t entirely true, but it does seem like being world-infamous would have to mitigate his danger quite a bit.
More generally — and bringing it back closer to the OP — I feel interested in when, and to what extent, future harms by criminals or norm-breakers can be prevented just by making sure that everyone knows their track record and can decide not to trust them.
I think having an easily-findable reputation makes it harder to do crimes, but being famous makes it easier. Many people are naive & gullible, or are themselves willing to do crime, and would like to work with him. I expect him to get opportunities for new ventures on leaving prison, with unsavory sorts.
I definitely support track-records being more findable publicly. Of course there’s some balance in that the person who publishes it has a lot of power over the person being written about, and if they exaggerate it or write it hyperbolically then they can impose a lot of inappropriate costs on the person that they’re in a bad position to push back on.
I voted 75% because taken literally I think in 25 years AI will be so advanced that he won’t have much of an ability to impact the world at all 🤓
(Otherwise 40%)