What do you mean by “winner-take-all”. Aren’t we generally assuming that most AI scenarios are “everyone-loses” and “universe-tiled-in-paperclips”? Is this post assuming that alignment is solved, but only in a weak way that still alows the AI to hurt people if it really wants to? I wish the starting assumptions were stated clearly somewhere
The pdf has a summary written by Kaj on pages 505-561, but my advice is to just read the whole thing. That way you learn not just the positions (which I think are reasonable), but also the responses to many objections. It’s a good overview that gets you close to the frontier of thinking about this topic.
What do you mean by “winner-take-all”. Aren’t we generally assuming that most AI scenarios are “everyone-loses” and “universe-tiled-in-paperclips”? Is this post assuming that alignment is solved, but only in a weak way that still alows the AI to hurt people if it really wants to? I wish the starting assumptions were stated clearly somewhere
The starting assumptions for my post are roughly the same as Robin’s assumptions in the debate.
And what are they? Are they listed in the pdf you linked to? Can you point to relevant pages, at least vaguely? I’d rather not read all of it.
Also, are these assumptions reasonable, whatever they are? Do you understand why I question them in my first comment?
The pdf has a summary written by Kaj on pages 505-561, but my advice is to just read the whole thing. That way you learn not just the positions (which I think are reasonable), but also the responses to many objections. It’s a good overview that gets you close to the frontier of thinking about this topic.