That sounds like you are in denail. I didn’t make a statement about whether or not OpenAI raises AI risk but referred to the discussion about whether or not it has. That discussion exist and people like Eliezer argue that OpenAI results in a net risk increase. Being in denail about that discourse is bad. It can help with feeling good when working in the area but it prevents good analysis about the dynamics.
No I take specific issue with the term ‘plausibly’. I don’t have a problem with the term ‘possibly’. Using the term plausibly already presumes judgement over the outcome of the discussion which I did not want to get into (mostly because I don’t have a strong view on this yet). You could of course argue that that’s false balance and if so I would like to hear your argument (but maybe not under this particular post, if people think that it’s too OT)
ETA: if this is just a disagreement about our definitions of the term ‘plausibly’ then nevermind, but your original comment reads to me like you’re taking a side.
Oh yes I’m aware that he expressed this view. That’s different however from it being objectively plausible (whatever that means).
I have the feeling we’re talking past each other a bit. I’m not saying “no-one reputable thinks OpenAI is net-negative for the world”. I’m just pointing out that it’s not as clear-cut as your initial comment made it seem to me.
That sounds like you are in denail. I didn’t make a statement about whether or not OpenAI raises AI risk but referred to the discussion about whether or not it has. That discussion exist and people like Eliezer argue that OpenAI results in a net risk increase. Being in denail about that discourse is bad. It can help with feeling good when working in the area but it prevents good analysis about the dynamics.
No I take specific issue with the term ‘plausibly’. I don’t have a problem with the term ‘possibly’. Using the term plausibly already presumes judgement over the outcome of the discussion which I did not want to get into (mostly because I don’t have a strong view on this yet). You could of course argue that that’s false balance and if so I would like to hear your argument (but maybe not under this particular post, if people think that it’s too OT)
ETA: if this is just a disagreement about our definitions of the term ‘plausibly’ then nevermind, but your original comment reads to me like you’re taking a side.
Eliezer wrote:
To me it seems reasonable to see that as EY presuming judgement about the effects of OpenAI.
Oh yes I’m aware that he expressed this view. That’s different however from it being objectively plausible (whatever that means). I have the feeling we’re talking past each other a bit. I’m not saying “no-one reputable thinks OpenAI is net-negative for the world”. I’m just pointing out that it’s not as clear-cut as your initial comment made it seem to me.
FWIW, “plausible” sounds to me basically the same as “possibly”. So my guess is this is indeed a linguistic thing.