Current median p(doom) among Ai scientists seem to be 5-10%. How can it NOT be reckless to pursue something without extreme caution that is believed by people with the most knowledge in the field to be close to a round of Russian roulette for humankind?
Imagine for a second that I am a world leading scientist dabbling with viruses at home that potentially could give people eternal life and health, but that I publicly would state that “based on my current knowledge and expertise there is maybe a 10% risk that I accidently wipeout all humans in the process, because I have no real idea how to control the virus”. Would you then:
A) Call me a reckless idiot, send a SWAT team that put me behind bars, and destroy my lab and other labs that might be dabbling with the same biotech.
How can it NOT be reckless to pursue something without extreme caution that is believed by people with the most knowledge in the field to be close to a round of Russian roulette for humankind?
Current median p(doom) among Ai scientists seem to be 5-10%. How can it NOT be reckless to pursue something without extreme caution that is believed by people with the most knowledge in the field to be close to a round of Russian roulette for humankind?
Imagine for a second that I am a world leading scientist dabbling with viruses at home that potentially could give people eternal life and health, but that I publicly would state that “based on my current knowledge and expertise there is maybe a 10% risk that I accidently wipeout all humans in the process, because I have no real idea how to control the virus”. Would you then:
A) Call me a reckless idiot, send a SWAT team that put me behind bars, and destroy my lab and other labs that might be dabbling with the same biotech.
B) Say “let the boy play”.
It doesn’t follow that he is seen as reckless even by those giving the 5-10% answer on the human extinction question, and this is a distinct fact from actually being reckless.