There’s been a lot of discussion about Trump. But I think the actual most important aspect is one that I havn’t seen discussed in any depth anywhere—there seems to be speculation that Peter Theil will be advise Trump on tech issues.
The president’s (unofficial?) technology advisor will be someone who has donated to miri/open ai/life extension. This is great news, and I would argue far more important than any other factor except nuclear war. This comes at a time when AI risk seems to be starting go mainstream, when Obama has had discussions on AI risk (that he did not seem to understand).
So, I’d like to see discussion on what this could lead to, whether there is a possibility that the US government might start funding life extension/AI risk research. One factor that does seem a little worrying is that, with any other president, I might be wondering whether MIRI might be able to apply for government funding or receive official recognition or be incorporated into a government body in some way. (does the US government do that sort of thing?) But given the horrific things that EY has said about Trump and the Borderer-descended people who voted for him, I doubt that’s possible anymore.
Oh well. I suppose there are other people who can be pointed to as experts on AI risk—Bostrom for instance—although he isn’t a US citizen.
This is great news, and I would argue far more important than any other factor except nuclear war.
What I’m most worried about is conventional war. Yes I know Hillary would’ve been terrible too, that’s not the point. Let’s just say that our latest Republican president doesn’t have a very good track record in that area.
I too would like a more pacifist president, but realistically neither the libertarians or the greens were going to win. But this is more because of the huge amount of money spent on the military. A conventional war would be bad, but I don’t see that it would be disastrous. NATO would easily beat Russia, and I’m not sure who would win in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, but it would be over quickly—the decisive factor is largely naval, and naval battles are over quickly. Neither country can deploy a large fraction of their army against the other as they are constrained by the number of troop ships and the distance involved.
As for bombing middle eastern countries, well that’s been going on since 2001 and will probably continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of who wins in 2020.
There’s been a lot of discussion about Trump. But I think the actual most important aspect is one that I havn’t seen discussed in any depth anywhere—there seems to be speculation that Peter Theil will be advise Trump on tech issues.
The president’s (unofficial?) technology advisor will be someone who has donated to miri/open ai/life extension. This is great news, and I would argue far more important than any other factor except nuclear war. This comes at a time when AI risk seems to be starting go mainstream, when Obama has had discussions on AI risk (that he did not seem to understand).
So, I’d like to see discussion on what this could lead to, whether there is a possibility that the US government might start funding life extension/AI risk research. One factor that does seem a little worrying is that, with any other president, I might be wondering whether MIRI might be able to apply for government funding or receive official recognition or be incorporated into a government body in some way. (does the US government do that sort of thing?) But given the horrific things that EY has said about Trump and the Borderer-descended people who voted for him, I doubt that’s possible anymore.
Oh well. I suppose there are other people who can be pointed to as experts on AI risk—Bostrom for instance—although he isn’t a US citizen.
Check out this FDA speculation.
Scott Alexander comments here.
What I’m most worried about is conventional war. Yes I know Hillary would’ve been terrible too, that’s not the point. Let’s just say that our latest Republican president doesn’t have a very good track record in that area.
Huh? Trump has a track record in conventional war?
He was talking about Bush the younger.
I too would like a more pacifist president, but realistically neither the libertarians or the greens were going to win. But this is more because of the huge amount of money spent on the military. A conventional war would be bad, but I don’t see that it would be disastrous. NATO would easily beat Russia, and I’m not sure who would win in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, but it would be over quickly—the decisive factor is largely naval, and naval battles are over quickly. Neither country can deploy a large fraction of their army against the other as they are constrained by the number of troop ships and the distance involved.
As for bombing middle eastern countries, well that’s been going on since 2001 and will probably continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of who wins in 2020.