I read this section of the post as saying, “if one argument is weakened, the others need to be stronger [or else SI’s conclusions are no longer supported.]”
But if you don’t read that into it, it does sound very sketchy.
This is definitely what I meant—I apologise that it was unclear. So to clarify, I meant that the premises can still support the conclusion if P1 is weakened, as long as P2 and P3 are strong enough that the expected value of FAI research is still adequately high.
In some ways, the strength of P1, P2 and P3 can be traded off against one another. That means that the argument might be more convincing to more people—you can think SAI is unlikely but still think the conclusion is correct (though I’m certainly not arguing that if P1 gets weakened, P2 and P3 must be stronger because the bottom line is undeniable, or any such thing).
Perhaps I should have said: Note that P1 in this argument can be weakened to simply say that SAI is a non-trivial possibility but, in response, a stronger version of P2 and P3 are required if the conclusion is still to be viable (that is, if SAI is less likely, it needs to be more dangerous or FAI research needs to be more effective in order for FAI research to have the same expected value).
Unless anyone comments negatively regarding this new version of the paragraph in the next few hours, I’ll update the original post.
I read this section of the post as saying, “if one argument is weakened, the others need to be stronger [or else SI’s conclusions are no longer supported.]”
But if you don’t read that into it, it does sound very sketchy.
This is definitely what I meant—I apologise that it was unclear. So to clarify, I meant that the premises can still support the conclusion if P1 is weakened, as long as P2 and P3 are strong enough that the expected value of FAI research is still adequately high.
In some ways, the strength of P1, P2 and P3 can be traded off against one another. That means that the argument might be more convincing to more people—you can think SAI is unlikely but still think the conclusion is correct (though I’m certainly not arguing that if P1 gets weakened, P2 and P3 must be stronger because the bottom line is undeniable, or any such thing).
Perhaps I should have said: Note that P1 in this argument can be weakened to simply say that SAI is a non-trivial possibility but, in response, a stronger version of P2 and P3 are required if the conclusion is still to be viable (that is, if SAI is less likely, it needs to be more dangerous or FAI research needs to be more effective in order for FAI research to have the same expected value).
Unless anyone comments negatively regarding this new version of the paragraph in the next few hours, I’ll update the original post.