Yes agreed. Indeed one of the things that motivated me to propose this three-sided framework is watching discussions of the following form: 1. A & B both state that they believe that AI poses real risks that the public doesn’t understand.
2. A takes (what I now call) the “doomer” position that existential risk is serious and all other risks pale in comparison: “we are heading toward an iceberg and so it is pointless to talk about injustices on the ship re: third class vs first class passengers”
3. B takes (what I now call) the “realist” or “pragmatist position” that existential risk is, if not impossible, very remote and a distraction from more immediate concerns, e.g. use of AI to spread propaganda or to deny worthy people of loans or jobs: “all this talk of existential risk is science fiction and obscuring the REAL problems”
4. A and B then begin vigorously arguing with each other, each accusing the other of wasting time on unimportant issues.
My hypothesis/theory/argument is that at this point the general public throws up its hands because both the critics/experts can’t seem to agree on the basics.
By the way, I hope it’s clear that I’m not accusing A or B of doing anything wrong. I think they are both arguing in good faith from deeply held beliefs.
Yes agreed. Indeed one of the things that motivated me to propose this three-sided framework is watching discussions of the following form:
1. A & B both state that they believe that AI poses real risks that the public doesn’t understand.
2. A takes (what I now call) the “doomer” position that existential risk is serious and all other risks pale in comparison: “we are heading toward an iceberg and so it is pointless to talk about injustices on the ship re: third class vs first class passengers”
3. B takes (what I now call) the “realist” or “pragmatist position” that existential risk is, if not impossible, very remote and a distraction from more immediate concerns, e.g. use of AI to spread propaganda or to deny worthy people of loans or jobs: “all this talk of existential risk is science fiction and obscuring the REAL problems”
4. A and B then begin vigorously arguing with each other, each accusing the other of wasting time on unimportant issues.
My hypothesis/theory/argument is that at this point the general public throws up its hands because both the critics/experts can’t seem to agree on the basics.
By the way, I hope it’s clear that I’m not accusing A or B of doing anything wrong. I think they are both arguing in good faith from deeply held beliefs.