It seems to be historically the case that “doomers” or “near-doomers” (public figures who espouse pessimistic views of the future, often with calls for collective drastic actions) do not always come out with a positive public perception when doom or near-doom is perceived not to occurred, or to have occurred far away from what was predicted.
Doomers seem to have a trajectory rather than a distribution, per se. From my perspective, this is on-trajectory. He believed doom was possible, now he believes it is probable.
I’m not sure how long it will be until we get past the “doom didn’t happen” point. Assuming he exists in the future, Eliezer_future lives in the world in which he was wrong. It’s not obvious to me that Eliezer_future exists with more probability the more Eliezer_current believes Eliezer_future doesn’t exist.
It seems to be historically the case that “doomers” or “near-doomers” (public figures who espouse pessimistic views of the future, often with calls for collective drastic actions) do not always come out with a positive public perception when doom or near-doom is perceived not to occurred, or to have occurred far away from what was predicted.
Doomers seem to have a trajectory rather than a distribution, per se. From my perspective, this is on-trajectory. He believed doom was possible, now he believes it is probable.
I’m not sure how long it will be until we get past the “doom didn’t happen” point. Assuming he exists in the future, Eliezer_future lives in the world in which he was wrong. It’s not obvious to me that Eliezer_future exists with more probability the more Eliezer_current believes Eliezer_future doesn’t exist.