@EvanHarper Source please? How many nations did this, and how coordinated was it (was it all literally the same night? after not having given any similar warnings in the past?)
@jmason It would be helpful to know how often the Do Not Travel warning is followed by a lack of invasion. I wouldn't be surprised if it's "90%+ of the time." This would be a more useful piece of evidence than the anecdote about Azerbaijan.
God dammit guys we had a sweet gig going! Just keep voting 1% and we all make points!
(This is my protest against this resolution method.)
@tbyoln IMO, when the heads of the AGI labs start publicly calling for slowdowns and caution, that is evidence that AGI is very near, not evidence that it's far away.
In general I think people here massively overestimate how long it'll take to go from "weakly general" to "general" (I'm referring to this question and its more popular weaker variant.)
I expect that if an AI that can pass the turing test exists by 2029, the turing test will never be run, nor will the Long Now foundation be around to announce the results. How should this influence my forecast? Would such a case resolve the question positively, negatively, or ambiguously?
I imagine that if we build unaligned AGI it will be because the people who built it think it is aligned. Then, those people + the AGI itself will work together to convince the rest of the world that it is aligned. Then it will take over, do bad stuff, etc. But the point is that even if we build unaligned AGI there will probably be a brief period where lots of high-status experts are saying that the AGI is aligned. I think we should clarify that such a situation doesn't count.
@Jgalt Can you explain why? Aliens vs. civil war seems like a pretty strange comparison to me; civil war should be several orders of magnitude more likely I'd say.
I don't like how I am now incentivised to guess 1% since that will almost surely get me some quick points, even though my true credence is more like 20%. Were I to guess 20%, it would probably stay below 3% anyway since I'm so outnumbered, and I would just lose points even if I'm actually right.
People need to update their forecasts on this one I think...
@Slurp EA = Effective Altruism. LW = LessWrong.com.
It's unclear whether any human could solve 80% of these coding problems on the first try. Humans typically take time to think about their answer before writing it, and during the writing process they usually edit things a bit to correct mistakes.
To be a fair comparison, the model should be allowed to use chain-of-thought techniques at the very least, and to review and edit its answer before submitting. Otherwise we are asking it to do something that no human could do.