It seems to me that both you and Joe are thinking about this very similarly—you are modelling the AIs as akin to rational agents that consider the costs and benefits of their various possible actions and maximize-subject-to-constraints. Surely there must be a way to translate between your framework and his.
As for the examples… so do you agree then? Violent or unlawful takeovers are not the only kinds people can and should be worried about? (If you think bribery is illegal, which it probably is, modify my example so that they use a lobbying method which isn’t illegal. The point is, they find some unethical but totally legal way to boil the oceans.) As for violence… we don’t consider other kinds of pollution to be violent, e.g. that done by coal companies that are (slowly) melting the icecaps and causing floods etc., so I say we shouldn’t consider this to be violent either.
I’m still curious to hear your p(misaligned-AIs-take-over-the-world-within-my-lifetime) is, including gradual nonviolent peaceful takeovers. And what your p(misaligned-AIs-take-over-the-world-within-my-lifetime|corporations achieving AGI by 2027 and doing only basically what they are currently doing to try to align them)
Unfortunately I think it’s simply very difficult to reliably distinguish between genuine good-faith persuasion and propaganda over speculative future scenarios. Your example is on the extreme end of what’s possible in my view, and most realistic scenarios will likely instead be somewhere in-between, with substantial moral ambiguity.
I’m not sure what this paragraph is doing—I said myself they were extreme examples. What does your first sentence mean?
It seems to me that both you and Joe are thinking about this very similarly—you are modelling the AIs as akin to rational agents that consider the costs and benefits of their various possible actions and maximize-subject-to-constraints. Surely there must be a way to translate between your framework and his.
As for the examples… so do you agree then? Violent or unlawful takeovers are not the only kinds people can and should be worried about? (If you think bribery is illegal, which it probably is, modify my example so that they use a lobbying method which isn’t illegal. The point is, they find some unethical but totally legal way to boil the oceans.) As for violence… we don’t consider other kinds of pollution to be violent, e.g. that done by coal companies that are (slowly) melting the icecaps and causing floods etc., so I say we shouldn’t consider this to be violent either.
I’m still curious to hear your p(misaligned-AIs-take-over-the-world-within-my-lifetime) is, including gradual nonviolent peaceful takeovers. And what your p(misaligned-AIs-take-over-the-world-within-my-lifetime|corporations achieving AGI by 2027 and doing only basically what they are currently doing to try to align them)
I’m not sure what this paragraph is doing—I said myself they were extreme examples. What does your first sentence mean?