If you’re willing to relax the “prominent” part of “prominent reasonable people”, I’d suggest myself. I think our odds of doom are < 5%, and I think that pretty much all the standard arguments for doom are wrong. I’ve written in specific about why I think the “evolution failed to align humans to inclusive genetic fitness” argument for doom via inner misalignment is wrong here: Evolution is a bad analogy for AGI: inner alignment.
I’m also a co-author on the The Shard Theory of Human Values sequence, which takes a more optimistic perspective than many other alignment-related memetic clusters, and disagrees with lots of past alignment thinking. Though last I checked, I was one of the most optimistic of the Shard theory authors, with Nora Belrose as a possible exception.
I paid a bounty for the Shard Theory link, but this particular comment… doesn’t do it for me. It’s not that I think it’s ill-reasoned, but it doesn’t trigger my “well-reasoned argument” sensor—it’s too… speculative? Something about it just misses me, in a way that I’m having trouble identifying. Sorry!
If you’re willing to relax the “prominent” part of “prominent reasonable people”, I’d suggest myself. I think our odds of doom are < 5%, and I think that pretty much all the standard arguments for doom are wrong. I’ve written in specific about why I think the “evolution failed to align humans to inclusive genetic fitness” argument for doom via inner misalignment is wrong here: Evolution is a bad analogy for AGI: inner alignment.
I’m also a co-author on the The Shard Theory of Human Values sequence, which takes a more optimistic perspective than many other alignment-related memetic clusters, and disagrees with lots of past alignment thinking. Though last I checked, I was one of the most optimistic of the Shard theory authors, with Nora Belrose as a possible exception.
+1 for Quintin. I would also suggest this comment here.
I paid a bounty for the Shard Theory link, but this particular comment… doesn’t do it for me. It’s not that I think it’s ill-reasoned, but it doesn’t trigger my “well-reasoned argument” sensor—it’s too… speculative? Something about it just misses me, in a way that I’m having trouble identifying. Sorry!
Yeah, I’ll pay a bounty for that!