After reviewing my copies of the deleted post, I can say that he doesn’t say this explicitly. I was remembering another commenter who was trying to work out the implications on x-risk of having viewed the basilisk.
EY does say things that directly imply he thinks the post is a basilisk because of an x-risk increase, but he does not say what he thinks that increase is.
Edit: can’t reply, no karma. It means I don’t know if it’s proportional.
One thing that Eliezer takes care to avoid doing is giving his actual numbers regarding the existential possibilities. And that is an extremely wise decision. Not everyone has fully internalised the idea behind Shut Up and Do The Impossible! Even if Eliezer believed that all of the work he and the SIAI may do will only improve our existential expectation by the kind of tiny amount you mention it would most likely still be the right choice to go ahead and do exactly what he is trying to do. But not everyone is that good at multiplication.
After reviewing my copies of the deleted post, I can say that he doesn’t say this explicitly. I was remembering another commenter who was trying to work out the implications on x-risk of having viewed the basilisk.
EY does say things that directly imply he thinks the post is a basilisk because of an x-risk increase, but he does not say what he thinks that increase is.
Edit: can’t reply, no karma. It means I don’t know if it’s proportional.
Nod. That makes more sense.
One thing that Eliezer takes care to avoid doing is giving his actual numbers regarding the existential possibilities. And that is an extremely wise decision. Not everyone has fully internalised the idea behind Shut Up and Do The Impossible! Even if Eliezer believed that all of the work he and the SIAI may do will only improve our existential expectation by the kind of tiny amount you mention it would most likely still be the right choice to go ahead and do exactly what he is trying to do. But not everyone is that good at multiplication.
Does that mean you’re backing away from your assertion of proportionality?
Or just that you’re using a different argument to support it?
I’m pretty sure that this is false.
I’m fairly certain this is false.