[barking_biscuit]

>Do you have a counterexample of someone who's gotten their predictions right? Because if not, that should only terrify you even more. If there's anyone out there who predicted how LLMs would work in a way Eliezer failed to, and if that person is predicting "AGI will be cool and will naturally prioritize our well-being", I would love to know.

A recent interview with Paul Christiano is about the closest I've come to this. He does note some semi-accurate predictions at the linked timestamp, but the forecast for how things are likely to go is not exactly rosy, though he's quite a bit more optimistic than Eliezer.

https://youtu.be/GyFkWb903aU?t=1357

Also this whole interview was pretty interesting. Near the end he details how few people world-wide actually work on X-risk from AGI. He also outlines how the academic ML community in general just continually keeps getting predictions really wrong, and many aren't taking X-risk seriously.

Overall his is the most balanced take I've seen. A lot better than Eliezer.

[digging]

I'll be glad to check it out later, but:

> he details how few people world-wide actually work on X-risk from AGI ... and many aren't taking X-risk seriously

still sounds extremely dangerous.

[barking_biscuit]

It's a fantastic interview. To clarify, his position boils down to something like "the risk is very real, the chance the risk materializes is quite significant, it's not a foregone conclusion that we are all definitely going to die from it, so there is some hope, but it's likely the default outcome and there aren't many people who take it seriously or who are working on it." I would say he's net bearish on it, which is why he spends time working on trying to mitigate the X-risk, or attempting to at least.