Given a low prior probability of doom as apparent from the empirical track record of technological progress, I think we should generally be skeptical of purely theoretical arguments for doom, especially if they are vague and make no novel, verifiable predictions prior to doom.
And why such use of the empirical track record is valid? Like, what’s the actual hypothesis here? What law of nature says “if technological progress hasn’t caused doom yet, it won’t cause it tomorrow”?
MIRI’s arguments for doom are often difficult to pin down, given the informal nature of their arguments, and in part due to their heavy reliance on analogies, metaphors, and vague supporting claims instead of concrete empirically verifiable models.
And arguments against are based on concrete empirically verifiable models of metaphors.
If your model of reality has the power to make these sweeping claims with high confidence, then you should almost certainly be able to use your model of reality to make novel predictions about the state of the world prior to AI doom that would help others determine if your model is correct.
Doesn’t MIRI’s model predict some degree of the whole Shoggoth/actress thing in current system? Seems verifiable.
And why such use of the empirical track record is valid? Like, what’s the actual hypothesis here? What law of nature says “if technological progress hasn’t caused doom yet, it won’t cause it tomorrow”?
And arguments against are based on concrete empirically verifiable models of metaphors.
Doesn’t MIRI’s model predict some degree of the whole Shoggoth/actress thing in current system? Seems verifiable.