data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/91a87/91a8707b161c09799475b785eaacecfed841e04e" alt=""
FSD Tesla car/truck deaths? Plane crashes by buggy AI airport traffic controller? Self flying planes? AI-driven CRISPR gene editing discovery of lethal virus escapes lab? AI heart or glucose monitor fails? How will we ever know this mounting death count?
@deagol I'm expecting those things will all be safer than the non-AI versions they are replacing, so they won't cause any deaths on net. You can ignore consumer electronics and medical devices and autopilots unless there's something egregiously wrong with them that results in a recall.
@JonathanRay Not for synthetic pathogens. Those would easily have much higher expected deaths, as a result of AI assistance. It will free them from the path dependent walk through the search space of pathogen design.
@deagol Currently, 60-70 million people die every year and we should be in that range until 2030. That means ~490 million expected deaths until 2030. A 1600 million (20%) additional deaths will be very visible in all kinds of statistics.
@NikitaSkovoroda Then why not go sell that one, you got 12.5k YES there? Just because a whale is propping that doesnāt mean everything else must be as they say. The proper arb is you go there kill that whale not the minnows here.
@NikitaSkovoroda Also, far from the same criteria. This āAI killsā specifically requires deaths caused by AI decisions. There itās just correlation āwill humans or AI be here or notā (misleading title).
@deagol Why should I sell that one when I think that both of those are lower than actual prob
I just bought both
@NikitaSkovoroda you say the price here canāt be lower than the one there (this is just false since the criteria are different but letās put that aside), yet you got 1k more YES there than here. Youāre buying more of something at a higher price, and talked yourself into this trap because some whale told you thatās the way.
@NikitaSkovoroda Non-AGI Ai military drones or nuclear launch systems count, so this should be a bit higher % than the same date extinction market
@JonathanRay wait Iām confused, isnāt that the exact opposite of what you told Isaac here?
This market requires deaths caused by AI, a much stronger claim than āwho will be here humans or AIā. If AI is gonna survive us, thereās so many other non-AI causes for our extinction like human-launched nukes, climate stuff, asteroid, super virus, etc., and all of these cases are excluded here but count there.
@JonathanRay canāt tell the distinction youāre making, can you please clarify? thanks.
āan arms race that includes AI capabilities, one country nukes anotherā ā Isaac
ādoesn't count since humans nuked other humans, AI didnāt make them do itā ā Jonathan
āperson or government tells the AI to kill peopleā ā Adrian
āyes killbots in WW3 count if they use AIā ā Jonathan
āNon-AGI Ai military drones or nuclear launch systems countā ā Jonathan
@deagol I donāt see any inconsistency there. If the nuclear launches are initiated by AI systems, it counts. If humans decide to nuke other humans to stop them from developing AI, that doesnāt count.
@JonathanRay I understood Isaacās hypothetical as humans using AI-capable weapons systems to stop opponents from developing AGI. So basically same question as Adrian (note the AI there is not deciding to kill, only executes person or government command). Finally you mention ānon-AGI AI dronesā this phrase suggests to me those still donāt have agency (ānon-AGIā) and remain command and control by humans, so again AI did not initiate nukes. Am I getting bogged down on a colloquial use of AI to refer to AGI in some contexts but not others? Sorry if Iām being dense.
@deagol If AI capabilities are part of weapons that humans decide to use against other humans, it counts. Kind of fuzzy where you draw the line on what counts as enough AI capabilities. It would be more than the advanced guidance systems that already exist, but less than full AGI.
@IsaacKing that doesn't count because humans made the decision to nuke other humans, without an AI manipulating them into doing it
@JonathanRay What if the nuclear targets are set using AI techniques to maximize casualties? Or if the nuclear weapons are developed using AI nuclear simulations?
@MartinRandall my phone uses AI so including anything that was designed, developed, sold, or operated with the help of AI seems way too broad to me.