teradimich

Karma: 269

teradimich Feb 13, 2025, 12:07 AM
1 point
0
in reply to: Nikola Jurkovic’s comment on: Orienting to 3 year AGI timelines
Then what is the probability of extinction caused by AI?

teradimich Feb 12, 2025, 11:46 PM
3 points
0
in reply to: Noosphere89’s comment on: The Paris AI Anti-Safety Summit
Of course, capital is useful in order to exert influence now. Although I would suggest that for a noticeable impact on events, capital or power is needed, which are inaccessible to the vast majority of the population.
But can we end up in a world where the richest 1% or 0.1% will survive, and the rest will die? Unlikely. Even if property rights were respected, such a world would have to turn into a mad hell.
Even a world in which only people like Sam Altman and their entourage will survive the singularity seems more likely.
But the most likely options should be the extinction of all or the survival of almost all without a strong correlation with current well-being. Am I mistaken?

teradimich Feb 12, 2025, 5:35 PM
23 points
17
in reply to: Bitnotri’s comment on: The Paris AI Anti-Safety Summit
Most experts do not believe that we are certainly (>80%) doomed. It would be an overreaction to give up after the news that politicians and CEO are behaving like politicians and CEO.

teradimich Feb 4, 2025, 10:12 PM
1 point
0
in reply to: Noosphere89’s comment on: Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development
It still surprises me that so many people agree on most issues, but have very different P(doom). And even long-term patient discussions do not bring people’s views closer. It will probably be even more difficult to convince a politician or the CEO.

teradimich Feb 4, 2025, 5:17 PM
1 point
0
in reply to: Noosphere89’s comment on: Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development
So what’s your P(doom)?

teradimich May 10, 2024, 3:15 PM
5 points
0
on: Do you know of lists of p(doom)s/AI forecasts/ AI quotes?
I have already tried to collect the most complete collection of quotes here. But it is already very outdated.

teradimich Mar 30, 2024, 8:11 PM
3 points
0
in reply to: Cookiecarver’s comment on: Nick Bostrom’s new book, “Deep Utopia”, is out today
It seems that in 2014 he believed that p(doom) was less than 20%

teradimich May 12, 2023, 6:55 PM
15 points
0
on: Most people should probably feel safe most of the time
I do expect some of the potential readers of this post to live in a very unsafe environment—e.g. parts of current-day Ukraine, or if they live together with someone abusive—where they are actually in constant danger.
I live ~14 kilometers from the front line, in Donetsk. Yeah, it’s pretty… stressful.
But I think I’m much more likely to be killed by an unaligned superintelligence than an artillery barrage.
Most people survive urban battles, so I have a good chance.
And in fact, many people worry even less than I do! People get tired of feeling in danger all the time.

teradimich May 2, 2023, 6:12 AM
11 points
12
on: Geoff Hinton Quits Google
’“Then why are you doing the research?” Bostrom asked.
“I could give you the usual arguments,” Hinton said. “But the truth is that the prospect of discovery is too sweet.” He smiled awkwardly, the word hanging in the air—an echo of Oppenheimer, who famously said of the bomb, “When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it, and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success.”′
‘I asked Hinton if he believed an A.I. could be controlled. “That is like asking if a child can control his parents,” he said. “It can happen with a baby and a mother—there is biological hardwiring—but there is not a good track record of less intelligent things controlling things of greater intelligence.” He looked as if he might elaborate. Then a scientist called out, “Let’s all get drinks!”’
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom
Hinton seems to be more responsible now!

teradimich Apr 11, 2023, 1:08 PM
7 points
6
on: Four mindset disagreements behind existential risk disagreements in ML
The level of concern and seriousness I see from ML researchers discussing AGI on any social media platform or in any mainstream venue seems wildly out of step with “half of us think there’s a 10+% chance of our work resulting in an existential catastrophe”.
In fairness, this is not quite half the researchers. This is half the agreed survey.
‘We contacted approximately 4271 researchers who published at the conferences NeurIPS or ICML in 2021. [...] We received 738 responses, some partial, for a 17% response rate’.
I expect that worried researchers are more likely to agree to participate in the survey.

teradimich Apr 6, 2023, 4:00 PM
5 points
0
in reply to: Daniel Kokotajlo’s comment on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
Thanks for your answer, this is important to me.

teradimich Apr 6, 2023, 10:38 AM
9 points
0
in reply to: Daniel Kokotajlo’s comment on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
I am not an American (so excuse me for my bad English!), so my opinion about the admissibility of attack on the US data centers is not so important. This is not my country.
But reading about the bombing of Russian data centers as an example was unpleasant. It sounds like a Western bias for me. And not only for me.
‘What on Earth was the point of choosing this as an example? To rouse the political emotions of the readers and distract them from the main question?’.
If the text is aimed at readers not only from the First World countries, well, perhaps the authors should do such a clarification as you did! Then it will not look like political hypocrisy. Or not write about air strikes at all, because people are distracted for discussing this.

teradimich Apr 6, 2023, 9:04 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: Daniel Kokotajlo’s comment on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
I’m not an American, so my consent doesn’t mean much :)

teradimich Apr 6, 2023, 3:55 AM
14 points
1
on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
Suppose China and Russia accepted the Yudkowsky’s initiative. But the USA is not. Would you support to bomb a American data center?

teradimich Dec 28, 2022, 9:25 AM
1 point
0
in reply to: Optimization Process’s comment on: Who are some prominent reasonable people who are confident that AI won’t kill everyone?
I can provide several links. And you choose those that are suitable. If suitable. The problem is that I retained not the most complete justifications, but the most … certain and brief. I will try not to repeat those that are already in the answers here.
Ben Goertzel
Jürgen Schmidhuber
Peter J.Bentley
Richard Loosemore
Jaron Lanier and Neil Gershenfeld

Magnus Vinding and his list
Tobias Baumann
Brian Tomasik

Maybe Abram Demski? But he changed his mind, probably.
Well, Stuart Russell. But this is a book. I can quote.
I do think that I’m an optimist. I think there’s a long way to go. We are just scratching the surface of this control problem, but the first scratching seems to be productive, and so I’m reasonably optimistic that there is a path of AI development that leads us to what we might describe as “provably beneficial AI systems.”
There are also a large number of reasonable people who directly called themselves optimists or pointed out a relatively small probability of death from AI. But usually they did not justify this in ~ 500 words…
I also recommend this book.

teradimich Dec 27, 2022, 7:28 PM
1 point
0
in reply to: Optimization Process’s comment on: Who are some prominent reasonable people who are confident that AI won’t kill everyone?
My fault. I should just copy separate quotes and links here.

teradimich Dec 7, 2022, 9:33 AM
2 points
0
on: Who are some prominent reasonable people who are confident that AI won’t kill everyone?
I have collected many quotes with links about the prospects of AGI. Most people were optimistic.

teradimich 14 Dec 2021 22:34 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Cameron Berg’s comment on: Theoretical Neuroscience For Alignment Theory
Glad you understood me. Sorry for my english!
Of course, the following examples themselves do not prove the opportunity to solve the entire problem of AGI alignment! But it seems to me that this direction is interesting and strongly underestimated. Well, someone smarter than me can look at this idea and say that it is bullshit, at least.
Partly this is a source of intuition for me, that the creation of aligned superintellect is possible. And maybe not even as hard as it seems.
We have many examples of creatures that follow the goals of someone more stupid. And the mechanism that is responsible for this should not be very complex.
Such a stupid process, as a natural selection, was able to create mentioned capabilities. It must be achievable for us.

teradimich 8 Dec 2021 14:38 UTC
5 points
on: Theoretical Neuroscience For Alignment Theory
It seems to me that the brains of many animals can be aligned with the goals of someone much more stupid themselves.
People and pets. Parasites and animals. Even ants and fungus.
Perhaps the connection that we would like to have with superintellence, is observed on a much smaller scale.

teradimich 19 Nov 2021 18:26 UTC
7 points
on: Ngo and Yudkowsky on AI capability gains
I apologize for the stupid question. But…
Do we have more chances to survive in the world, which is closer to Orwell’s ’1984′?
It seems to me that we are moving towards more global surveillance and control. China’s regime in 2021 may seem extremely liberal for an observer in 2040.