> Robin Hanson was claiming things along the lines of ‘The power is in the culture; superintelligences wouldn’t be able to outstrip the rest of humanity.’
This argument hasn’t been disproven yet. In fact, still seems quite credible, unless I am mistaken?
I’m happy to consider the question ‘as settled as it can be, pre-superintelligence’ or ‘settled in the context of most conversations among alignment researchers’, while also endorsing it as a good discussion topic insofar as you or others do disagree. Feel free to cite arguments for ‘the power is in the culture, superintelligence can’t outstrip humanity’ here, and start a conversation about it!
More broadly, if the alignment field makes any intellectual progress, it will inevitably still be the case that some people disagree, or haven’t heard the 101-level arguments and moved on. 201-level conversations need to be able to coexist on LW with 101-level discussions to some degree, even if the field somehow turns out to be wrong on this specific question. So yes, raise objections!
There seems to already be decently written anti-foom arguments on LW, and I’ve not yet seen a refutation of all of them, nor a credible argument for assuming a foom scenario by default or on a balance of probabilities basis. Perhaps you can point me to a comprehensive rebuttal?
I can point to rebuttals, but “comprehensive rebuttal” suggests you want me to address every argument for Foom. If you already know of a bunch of existing resources, probably it would be easier for you to mention at least one anti-Foom argument you find persuasive, or at least one hole in a pro-Foom argument that you find important, etc.
Then I won’t waste time addressing 9⁄10 of the well-trod arguments only to find that the remaining 1⁄10 I left out of my uncomprehensive rebuttal was the part you actually cared about and found credible. :P
(Also, I’m not necessarily committing to writing a detailed reply. If I don’t follow up, feel free to update some that I plausibly either don’t have a good response on hand, or don’t have an easy/concise response, taking into account that I’m juggling a lot of other things at the moment. I’m primarily commenting here because I’m interested in promoting more object-level discussion of topics like this in general; and maybe someone else will reply even if I don’t.)
This argument hasn’t been disproven yet. In fact, still seems quite credible, unless I am mistaken?
I’m happy to consider the question ‘as settled as it can be, pre-superintelligence’ or ‘settled in the context of most conversations among alignment researchers’, while also endorsing it as a good discussion topic insofar as you or others do disagree. Feel free to cite arguments for ‘the power is in the culture, superintelligence can’t outstrip humanity’ here, and start a conversation about it!
More broadly, if the alignment field makes any intellectual progress, it will inevitably still be the case that some people disagree, or haven’t heard the 101-level arguments and moved on. 201-level conversations need to be able to coexist on LW with 101-level discussions to some degree, even if the field somehow turns out to be wrong on this specific question. So yes, raise objections!
There seems to already be decently written anti-foom arguments on LW, and I’ve not yet seen a refutation of all of them, nor a credible argument for assuming a foom scenario by default or on a balance of probabilities basis. Perhaps you can point me to a comprehensive rebuttal?
I can point to rebuttals, but “comprehensive rebuttal” suggests you want me to address every argument for Foom. If you already know of a bunch of existing resources, probably it would be easier for you to mention at least one anti-Foom argument you find persuasive, or at least one hole in a pro-Foom argument that you find important, etc.
Then I won’t waste time addressing 9⁄10 of the well-trod arguments only to find that the remaining 1⁄10 I left out of my uncomprehensive rebuttal was the part you actually cared about and found credible. :P
(Also, I’m not necessarily committing to writing a detailed reply. If I don’t follow up, feel free to update some that I plausibly either don’t have a good response on hand, or don’t have an easy/concise response, taking into account that I’m juggling a lot of other things at the moment. I’m primarily commenting here because I’m interested in promoting more object-level discussion of topics like this in general; and maybe someone else will reply even if I don’t.)
If you mean address every argument against foom, then yes.
If a comprehensive rebuttal doesn’t already exist, and you have to write it now, that suggests it’s not anywhere close to agreed upon.
In any case I find Robin Hanson’s argument credible. I’ve not yet seen a persuasive rebuttal so if you can find one I’d be impressed.