Mere exposure effect: Bias in Evaluating AGI X-Risks
Note on unusual formatting: Sentences are split into lines so you can parse parts precisely.
Also called an ‘Availability cascade’,
a self-reinforcing process in which
a collective belief gains more and more plausibility
through its increasing repetition in public discourse
(or “repeat something long enough and it will become true”).
Insofar as nearly all
of the published literature on risk assessment
assumes the same argument form, outline, logic, etc,
there is also established a kind of “mono-culture”.
As with any other sort of mono-culture in nature,
the mere fact of that being that way ensures
that there are additional issues introduced:
a kind of brittleness and fragility.
Anything which impacts
the validity and applicability
of the single argument form,
will therefore also have the undesirable effect
of “undoing” and invalidating far too large
a proportion of the published risk assessments,
in far too many critical areas.
With something as critically important
as a category 1 or 2 extinction risk,
much more diversity of independent
and overlapping argument forms
is needed and called for, particularly
in regard to general context
considerations and assumptions.
- link Wikipedia: Mere exposure effect
- an item on Forrest Landry’s compiled list of biases in evaluating extinction risks.
Example of a statement with a mere exposure effect: “aligning AGI is possible in principle”
A paper that describes a risk-assessment monoculture in evaluating extinction risks: Democratising Risk.