My (hot-)take: lots of useful ideas and concepts, but also many examples of people thinking everything is a nail/wanting to fit risks inside their pre-existing framework.
People sometimes dismiss exposure when studying GCR, since “everyone is exposed by definition”. This isn’t always true, and even when it is, it still points us towards interesting questions.
Even if there are some edge cases when this applies to existential risks, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is prominent enough to be worthwhile including as an element in an x-risk framework.
Thanks for this post.
My (hot-)take: lots of useful ideas and concepts, but also many examples of people thinking everything is a nail/wanting to fit risks inside their pre-existing framework.
Not sure what you mean here, can you explain?
I’ll provide an example:
Even if there are some edge cases when this applies to existential risks, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is prominent enough to be worthwhile including as an element in an x-risk framework.