Philosopher David Chalmers asked: "Is there a canonical source for "the argument for AGI ruin" somewhere, preferably laid out as an explicit argument with premises and a conclusion?"

Unsurprisingly, the actual reason people expect AGI ruin isn't a crisp deductive argument; it's a probabilistic update based on many lines of evidence. The specific observations and heuristics that carried the most weight for someone will vary for each individual, and can be hard to accurately draw out. That said, Eliezer Yudkowsky's So Far: Unfriendly AI Edition might be a good place to start if we want a pseudo-deductive argument just for the sake of organizing discussion. People can then say which premises they want to drill down on. In The Basic Reasons I Expect AGI Ruin, I wrote: "When I say "general intelligence", I'm usually thinking about "whatever it is that lets human brains do astrophysics, category theory, etc. even though our brains evolved under literally zero selection pressure to solve astrophysics or category theory problems". It's possible that we should already be thinking of GPT-4 as "AGI" on some definitions, so to be clear about the threshold of generality I have in mind, I'll specifically talk about "STEM-level AGI", though I expect such systems to be good at non-STEM tasks too. STEM-level AGI is AGI that has "the basic mental machinery required to do par-human reasoning about all the hard sciences", though a specific STEM-level AGI could (e.g.) lack physics ability for the same reasons many smart humans can't solve physics problems, such as "lack of familiarity with the field".

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QzkTfj4HGpLEdNjXX/an-artificially-structured-argument-for-expecting-agi-ruin

"An artificially structured argument for expecting AGI ruin" by Rob Bensinger 01:02:24 Share

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

Shownotes Transcript

"An artificially structured argument for expecting AGI ruin" by Rob Bensinger