Read on Twitter
@MelMitchell1 Based on the dataset for this survey:
Only 149 answered the "Extinction from AI" Q.
= 20% of the 738 respondents (3% of the 4,271 AI experts contacted)
Only 162 answered "Extinction from human failure to control AI" Q.
= 22% of the 738 respondents (3.7% of AI experts contacted)
Only 149 answered the "Extinction from AI" Q.
= 20% of the 738 respondents (3% of the 4,271 AI experts contacted)
Only 162 answered "Extinction from human failure to control AI" Q.
= 22% of the 738 respondents (3.7% of AI experts contacted)
@MelMitchell1 AI Impacts FUNDING:
MIRI (Yudkowsky), Survival & Flourishing Fund, The Centre for Effective Altruism (Oxford), Effective Altruism Funds, Open Philanthropy, Fathom Radiant. Previously: The Future of Life Institute, the Future of Humanity Institute (Bostrom), FTX Future Fund (RIP).
MIRI (Yudkowsky), Survival & Flourishing Fund, The Centre for Effective Altruism (Oxford), Effective Altruism Funds, Open Philanthropy, Fathom Radiant. Previously: The Future of Life Institute, the Future of Humanity Institute (Bostrom), FTX Future Fund (RIP).
@MelMitchell1 Tristan Harris cites this study in the "AI Dilemma," his podcast, on NBC, and his New York Times OpEd with Raskin and Harari.
The New York Times REALLY loves to share this stat as well; It already appeared in Klein's column & podcast, Wallace-Wells' OpEd & The Morning newsletter
The New York Times REALLY loves to share this stat as well; It already appeared in Klein's column & podcast, Wallace-Wells' OpEd & The Morning newsletter
@MelMitchell1 Let's recap: "AI Impacts" contacted attendees of two ML conferences (NeurlPS & ICML), not a gathering of the broader AI community, in which 17% responded to their survey in general, and only 3% responded to the specific "Extinction from AI" questions.
A clear case of sample bias.
A clear case of sample bias.
@MelMitchell1 WHY did the results for "Extinction from AI/human failure to control AI" differ?
"This could be due to noise (different random subsets of respondents received the questions, so there is no logical requirement that their answers cohere), or due to the representativeness heuristic"
"This could be due to noise (different random subsets of respondents received the questions, so there is no logical requirement that their answers cohere), or due to the representativeness heuristic"
@MelMitchell1 The researchers who conducted the survey:
-Katja Grace, who co-founded AI Impacts, also from MIRI and the Future of Humanity Institute.
-Zach Stein-Perlman, describes himself as an "Aspiring rationalist and effective altruist."
-Ben Weinstein-Raun, who also spent years at MIRI.
-Katja Grace, who co-founded AI Impacts, also from MIRI and the Future of Humanity Institute.
-Zach Stein-Perlman, describes himself as an "Aspiring rationalist and effective altruist."
-Ben Weinstein-Raun, who also spent years at MIRI.
@MelMitchell1 "AI Impacts" doing research on "AI Safety" is like letting Anti-vax activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. conduct a survey on "Vaccine Safety."
Similar inherent biases.
Media would question the latter's origin, so why didn't it question this one?
The stat was compelling for AI panic.
Similar inherent biases.
Media would question the latter's origin, so why didn't it question this one?
The stat was compelling for AI panic.
@threadreaderapp
unroll
unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
