The author also criticizes the tendency to panic over potential AI risks, arguing that this could delay the benefits AI could bring to humanity. They compare this to the fear-driven stalling of nuclear power development. The author concludes that while there is a small chance that AI could pose a threat, and it is worth some people working on this problem, the burden of proof lies with those predicting doom to demonstrate the plausibility of their scenario.
Key takeaways:
- The author argues against the idea that artificial intelligence (AI) poses an existential threat to humanity, stating that while individual arguments against this idea may be weak, collectively they form a strong case.
- The author presents eight arguments against AI doomerism, assigning each a probability of being true. These arguments include the idea that there are diminishing returns to intelligence, that alignment will not be a significant problem, and that AI will be benevolent.
- The author suggests that even if AI does pose a risk, there may be nothing we can do about it, or our politics may prevent us from finding a solution. The author calculates a 4% chance that AI is an existential risk and we can do something about it.
- The author warns against the potential negative effects of AI doomerism, suggesting that it could delay the benefits of AI and pose its own existential risk. The author supports efforts to find technical solutions to potential AI problems, but opposes attempts to impose government control over the industry.