Personally, I found it obvious that the title was being playful and don’t mind that sort of tongue-in-cheek thing. I mean “utterly perfect” is kind of a give away that they’re not being serious.
Yes, I wanted to downvote too. But this is actually a good little argument to analyze. @William the Kiwi, please change the title to something like “What are the weaknesses in this argument for doom?”
It’s fine. I have no authority here, that was really meant as a suggestion… Maybe the downvoters thought it was too basic a post, but I like the simplicity and informality of it. The argument is clear and easy to analyze, and on a topic as uncertain and contested as this one, it’s good to return to basics sometimes.
I think it was a helpful suggestion. I am happy that you liked the simplicity of the argument. The idea was it was meant to be as concise as possible to make the flaws seem more easy to spot. The argument relies on a range of assumptions but I deliberately left out the more confident assumptions. I find the topic of predicting AI development challenging, and was hoping this argument tree would be an efficient way of recognizing the more challenging parts.
The above reply has two disagreement votes. I am trying to discern which reasons they are for. Disagree vote this post if you disagree that Mitchell_Porters suggestion was helpful.
I kinda wanna downvote for clickbaity title.
Personally, I found it obvious that the title was being playful and don’t mind that sort of tongue-in-cheek thing. I mean “utterly perfect” is kind of a give away that they’re not being serious.
You are correct, I was not being serious. I was a little worried someone might think I was, but considered it a low probably.
Edit: this little stunt has cost me a 1 hour time limit on replies. I will reply to the other replies soon
Yes, I wanted to downvote too. But this is actually a good little argument to analyze. @William the Kiwi, please change the title to something like “What are the weaknesses in this argument for doom?”
As requested I have updated the title. How does the new one look?
Edit: this is a reply to the reply below, as I am commenting restricted but still want to engage with the other commenters: deleted
Edit2: reply moved to actual reply post
It’s fine. I have no authority here, that was really meant as a suggestion… Maybe the downvoters thought it was too basic a post, but I like the simplicity and informality of it. The argument is clear and easy to analyze, and on a topic as uncertain and contested as this one, it’s good to return to basics sometimes.
I think it was a helpful suggestion. I am happy that you liked the simplicity of the argument. The idea was it was meant to be as concise as possible to make the flaws seem more easy to spot. The argument relies on a range of assumptions but I deliberately left out the more confident assumptions. I find the topic of predicting AI development challenging, and was hoping this argument tree would be an efficient way of recognizing the more challenging parts.
Disagree vote this post if you disagree that the topic of predicting AI development is challenging.
Disagree vote this post if you disagree with liking the simplicity of the original post.
The above reply has two disagreement votes. I am trying to discern which reasons they are for. Disagree vote this post if you disagree that Mitchell_Porters suggestion was helpful.
Oops I realized I have used “flaws” rather than “weaknesses”. Do you consider these to be appropriate synonyms? I can update if not.