My hope is that folks will read this document carefully, and leave comments, noting which specific claims of mine seem false, and, if you think some part of my story is wrong, outlining how it works instead.
I've done my best to state things clearly and in detail. But probably some parts of this will be unclear and we will run into more miscommunications.
Nevertheless, it seems better to post it, and see what those miscommunications are, and then I can try to clarify them.
Also, fee free to point out any typos.
I'm also contemplating a different essay, "On hostility", which is intended to be a disjunctive argument about when you can expect agents in general to cooperate peacefully with you, and when you can expect them to resort to violence.
Hopeful that one will be tighter, when I've finished it, but we'll see.
My catch all thread for this discussion of AI risk in relation to Critical Rationalism, to summarize what's happened so far and how to go forward, from here.
I started by simply stating that I thought that the arguments that I had heard so far don't hold up, and seeing if anyone was interested in going into it in depth with me.
So far, a few people have engaged pretty extensively with me, for instance, scheduling video calls to talk about some of the stuff, or long private chats.
(Links to some of those that are public at the bottom of the thread.)
I am increasingly impressed with @robertskmiles's videos on AI safety topics.
They're a really fantastic resource, since they're well explained, and it is much easier to ask a person to watch a youtube video than it is to read a long series of blog posts, or even worse, a book.
(In a conversation, it is feasible to just sit down with a person and watch a 15 minute video together at 1.5 speed, and then dive back into discussion, in a way that is is a lot less feasible to say "read this", and sit there while they rush through a post or three.)
My understanding is that there was a 10 year period starting around 1868, in which South Carolina's legislature was mostly black, and when the universities were integrated (causing most white students to leave), before the Dixiecrats regained power.
I would like to find a relatively non-partisan account of this period.
In the past few months I've shifted my implicit thinking about meditation and enlightenment.
I've gone from thinking:
"Enlightenment is probably a real thing, and probably related to processing epistemic technical debt somehow.
Probably it also has something to do with noticing the 'edges' of how you're projecting your reality, and getting a visceral sense of the difference between 'the movie' and 'the screen the movie is projected on.'
In particular, enlightenment (probably) is or is the result of progressing far enough down a particular psychological axis, in the "good direction".
Including many moves that I actively teach. Embarrassing!
In particular, given the number of people responding to me I've fallen into a pattern of giving counter arguments to specific, false (in my view) claims, without checking / showing that I've understood the claims.
So (aided by @VictorLevoso's example in a private correspondence), I'm going to offer a paraphrase of my current understanding of the Crit Rat view on AI risk, in a central place where everyone can respond at once.