Would you say the social pressure as motivation to agree with the severity AI risks becomes significant once one voluntarily joins a community like LW?
If there are, say, 1000 active members, 500 of which believe that UFAI is the most important threat to deal with, how many of those 500 people have authentically arrived at that conclusion by doing the math? And how many are simply playing along because of social pressure, status-seeking, and a sort of Pascal’s Wager that benefits them nothing for dissenting?
Would you say the social pressure as motivation to agree with the severity AI risks becomes significant once one voluntarily joins a community like LW?
Yes, provided you want to integrate into the community (and not e.g. play the role of a contrarian).
how many of those 500 people have authentically arrived at that conclusion by doing the math?
I don’t know but I would expect very few. Also, you can’t arrive at this conclusion by doing math because at this point the likelihood of UFAI is a matter of your priors, not available data.
Hm. Perhaps I asked poorly.
Would you say the social pressure as motivation to agree with the severity AI risks becomes significant once one voluntarily joins a community like LW?
If there are, say, 1000 active members, 500 of which believe that UFAI is the most important threat to deal with, how many of those 500 people have authentically arrived at that conclusion by doing the math? And how many are simply playing along because of social pressure, status-seeking, and a sort of Pascal’s Wager that benefits them nothing for dissenting?
Yes, provided you want to integrate into the community (and not e.g. play the role of a contrarian).
I don’t know but I would expect very few. Also, you can’t arrive at this conclusion by doing math because at this point the likelihood of UFAI is a matter of your priors, not available data.