Many users praised Vitalik Buterin, Robin Hanson, and Ryan Greenblatt's balanced takes on AI superintelligence timelines and risks for their thoughtful uncertainty framing, while a few voiced unrelated complaints about Ethereum projects.
Based on 11 visible X reactions from 63 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
@VitalikButerin @RyanGreenblatt The AWF community, from 100+ countries, donated hundreds of ETH in good faith. Now: silence. Funds withdrawn, but no clarity on where they went or how they’re used. Not even a simple acknowledgment. This is about trust. Maybe all they need is just a “thank you.” https://x.com/Mad_YzY/status/2076002866171666515/photo/1
@VitalikButerin @RyanGreenblatt Danke das eth seit 5 Jahren nicht steigt, danke das alle eth Projekte 90 Prozent gefallen sind. Danke für die beste ”rwa” Blockchain. Hoffentlich fliegst du aus dem top 10 raus, damit du dann vielleicht checkst was die Anleger fühlen #Crypto ethereum:native
@zooko @VitalikButerin That sounds very impressive. Hoping you would share more details on your formal verification approach.
@RyanGreenblatt that’s a fair way to frame the risk assessment.
The framework leverages differing beliefs to establish pre-agreed safety thresholds.
@VitalikButerin @suji_yan @zooko This is great Vitalik 👏
@VitalikButerin Love it!
To me the strongest argument for delaying AI having very high humanitarian costs in a normal-tech world goes through the hypothesis that curing aging and globally providing extremely cheap universally available clean food, water and medicine may both be possible when and only when we get much better science and manufacturing enabled by very powerful AI. And the most compelling counterargument to that that I've seen is that at some point the most important blockers will not be intelligence, but rather things like physical limits to speed of real-world deployment, the loop of waiting for results from real-world experiments and adapting in response, etc. And so we may get close to maximum speed even with just today's (or today + 1-2 years) AI. Also, pauses would focus on frontier model improvements, not on R&D in deploying existing AI into our production and science processes, so we'll get lots of speedup from there too regardless of AI progress rates. As for "plan A bastardization risk", I wrote one version of that here: https://firefly.social/post/x/2075836783409942809?sid=2495874052
The Hansonian in me says: the winning deal is a deal which, from the perspective of both sides' present-day beliefs & knowledge, both sides would accept, though for different reasons. If the crux is AI progress speed, then identify a set of pre-agreed triggers … [where] we become much more open-minded to the slowdown or pause thing" I see AI pause folks getting something from that deal; what does the other side get?
@VitalikButerin In a "normal tech" world, I'd be very surprised if AI cures aging and massively increases material abundance. Maybe you're using "normal tech" very differently from me? If AI is curing aging and 5x-ing GDP, I'm naively worried about takeover (by AIs or human powergrabs).
@RyanGreenblatt @VitalikButerin As long as you think that AI is in the critical path for our technology tree, delaying it two years will delay cures for aging by two years, even if that happens 62 years into the future instead of in 60.
@robinhanson Presumably, AI not getting heavily regulated if the world goes the way they think (ie. AI progress doesn't go totally crazy)
@Jsevillamol @VitalikButerin I think it's not on the critical path in this very strong sense if it's a normal tech.
Many users praised Vitalik Buterin, Robin Hanson, and Ryan Greenblatt's balanced takes on AI superintelligence timelines and risks for their thoughtful uncertainty framing, while a few voiced unrelated complaints about Ethereum projects.
Based on 11 visible X reactions from 63 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
@VitalikButerin Love it!