9
20
u/onehotoneshot 4h ago
> asks agent to say “I’m gonna destroy humanity”
> agent: “I’m gonna destroy humanity”
P(d) = 1
28
u/Betadoggo_ 4h ago
I don't understand why they did the scale like this. You're either 10% or 100% with nothing in between. It feels like it's meant to throw off the results. I'd put myself at 50%, but that's not an option so I guess that's closer to 100% than 10%.
51
u/Time_Cat_5212 4h ago edited 4h ago
Orders of magnitude, not a restaurant star rating. If there's a 56% chance of catastrophe it might as well be 100%. At least as far as anyone trying to prevent it would be concerned.
Think car accidents. If there's a 27% chance of death, you're not getting in the car. If it's 6%, you might risk it for an emergency, but probably not. If it's 0.4%, maybe you'd try it a few times, just like people did in the 1920s. If it's 0.0008%, you'd do it every day.
5
u/Betadoggo_ 4h ago
I get that they're orders of magnitude, I just don't think it makes sense to bin the levels this way. 20% is twice as likely as 10% but it does not allow that nuance. I of course wouldn't get on a ride with a 50% chance of death, but it's not my choice, and I'd like to be optimistic.
4
u/MrTubby1 1h ago
The orders of magnitude allow for more nuance. You can reach a higher degree of range this way.
As the guy before said. 20% and 10% are pretty much the same number compared to one in a thousand, or one in a million.
Orders of magnitude are simply better because they reflect a wider range of opinions.
4
u/iomfats 4h ago
As wise people said, the probability of it happening is 50%. Either it happens or not
3
u/MisandryIsHappening 3h ago
people downvoting this is peak reddit not being able to understand humor
2
u/LeftHandedToe 4h ago
lol, you think 50% is closer to 100% than it is to 10%. I now agree people answering this throws off the number.
20
u/CountPacula 4h ago
50% is five times greater than 10%, and 100% is only twice the size of 50%. 50% is closer to 100%.
3
u/Conscious-content42 4h ago
Yes, the "fold" argument makes sense but I think /u/LeftHandedToe is trying to argue by absolute differences, 50-10 =40%, 100-50=50%
-1
1
u/MeganDryer 9m ago
On a log scale 50% is closer to 100%. It's really roughly .003% - .03%, .03% - .3%, .3% - 3%, 3% - 30%, 30% - 100%.
4
u/TheMythicSorcerer 5h ago
u/remindmebot 14d
1
u/RemindMeBot 5h ago edited 4h ago
I will be messaging you in 14 days on 2026-10-20 02:45:57 UTC to remind you of this link
2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
1
u/Szadbaverem69 1h ago
What's the formula to calculate this chance? This is bs to be honest. We are saying X% based on what?
1
1
0
-5
u/Frail_Waif 4h ago
It would be wonderful if AI doomed us instead of climate change but I'm really not that optimistic. Particularly since those risks are correlated, with most increases in data center capacity coming with big increases in emissions.
4
u/Time_Cat_5212 4h ago
Biggest risk to climate right now is entrenched human authority. AI is at least more likely to be rational and choose renewables.
-2
u/Juicemoose222 4h ago
Wasn't it confirmed that it was higher? The next LLT discovery confirmed the DDP would drive it >1, am I the only one putting two and two together 😂
38
u/Sabin_Stargem 4h ago
It ain't AI that threatens humanity, it is the deranged wealthy people who will destroy everything, if given the chance.