[bwanab]

The other thing about this article is that it contains falsifiable claims that are, well, false. Consider the following direct quote: "The 2028 election cycle is heated, as usual. AI is the biggest topic." No poll of the American public has AI as one of the top concerns except in polls where the question is specifically about AI. The general polls show topics like healthcare costs, inflation/affordability, government dysfunction, and immigration as the top concerns. AI doesn't even show up in the top 20 in every list I looked at (Gallup, Pew, YouGov).

It sounds more like "everybody I know thinks AI is the top concern" when everybody they know is people like them, i.e. an echo chamber. It gives me no confidence in any other claims.

[Aurornis]

The AI 2040 writing and the AI 2027 before it both sprang from within the rationalist communities. Scott Alexander (of the popular rationalist Slate Star Codex / Astral Codex Ten blog) played a role in both articles, though he says he chose to leave his name off of this one.

AGI and AI doom scenarios have been evergreen topics in rationalism for years. Long before we had enough compute power to do anything at all useful with generative AI. Many of the rationalist scenarios about future AIs had very religious themes where the AI became so powerful that it was effectively a god.

Rationalists had concept's like Roko's Basilisk, a thought experiment where a future all-powerful AI might choose to punish anyone who predicted the arrival of AI but failed to contribute to the arrival of AI.

The rationalist communities took this thought experiment so seriously that the biggest rationalist forum of the time formally banned discussion of Roko's Basilisk for 5 years. They believed it was an "info hazard" because once you knew about this risk, you either had to contribute to bringing about this future AI god or you risked being punished by it in the future.

If this is new to you, you might think I'm exaggerating or making things up to make a group look bad, but this was such a core belief that it has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

The people writing AI 2027 and AI 2040 were immersed in these cultures. That's why they think that AI is the primary topic that anyone is talking about in elections, just like the Bitcoin people all thought crypto was the only relevant election topic.

The GP comment is getting attacked, but there really is a heavy religious fervor background to the AI fears in the rationalist community. The religious angle and extremism of the forums is downplayed when in crosses over into mainstream topics, but it's been there from the start.

[pnt12]

First I was intrigues by the rationalist movement, but I was deeply disappointed. To put it bluntly, seems to me like geeks LARPing as philosophers, and not with rational argument as they promise, but rationalizing their sci fi fanfictions.

[layla5alive]

Yes, calling themselves "rationalists" seems to be the biggest tell. That they wish they were that. Yet their behavior reflects anything but.

[ThrowawayR2]

If I recall correctly, the text of Yudkowsky's response to Roko's Basilisk used to be part of the Wikipedia page but was removed and not even a reference link was provided even though the response was mentioned in the body of the article. For posterity's sake, from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk/Original_pos... here it is in all its hilariously unhinged glory:

"One might think that the possibility of CEV punishing people couldn't possibly be taken seriously enough by anyone to actually motivate them. But in fact one person at SIAI was severely worried by this, to the point of having terrible nightmares, though ve wishes to remain anonymous. I don't usually talk like this, but I'm going to make an exception for this case.

Listen to me very closely, you idiot.

YOU DO NOT THINK IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT SUPERINTELLIGENCES CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO BLACKMAIL YOU. THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING WHICH GIVES THEM A MOTIVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE BLACKMAIL.

There's an obvious equilibrium to this problem where you engage in all positive acausal trades and ignore all attempts at acausal blackmail. Until we have a better worked-out version of TDT and we can prove that formally, it should just be OBVIOUS that you DO NOT THINK ABOUT DISTANT BLACKMAILERS in SUFFICIENT DETAIL that they have a motive to ACTUALLY BLACKMAIL YOU.

If there is any part of this acausal trade that is positive-sum and actually worth doing, that is exactly the sort of thing you leave up to an FAI. We probably also have the FAI take actions that cancel out the impact of anyone motivated by true rather than imagined blackmail, so as to obliterate the motive of any superintelligences to engage in blackmail.

Meanwhile I'm banning this post so that it doesn't (a) give people horrible nightmares and (b) give distant superintelligences a motive to follow through on blackmail against people dumb enough to think about them in sufficient detail, though, thankfully, I doubt anyone dumb enough to do this knows the sufficient detail. (I'm not sure I know the sufficient detail.)

You have to be really clever to come up with a genuinely dangerous thought. I am disheartened that people can be clever enough to do that and not clever enough to do the obvious thing and KEEP THEIR IDIOT MOUTHS SHUT about it, because it is much more important to sound intelligent when talking to your friends. This post was STUPID.

(For those who have no idea why I'm using capital letters for something that just sounds like a random crazy idea, and worry that it means I'm as crazy as Roko, the gist of it was that he just did something that potentially gives superintelligences an increased motive to do extremely evil things in an attempt to blackmail us. It is the sort of thing you want to be EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE about NOT DOING.)"

[MaybiusStrip]

The current year is 2026. I think it's quite likely AI will make the top 3 by then. Putting this on my calendar.

[bwanab]

Yes, I can't predict the future, but if it were a bet on Kalshi I'd be willing to put my money on the AI won't make the list side.

[ToValueFunfetti]

This seems out of line with what you were saying above. Do you mean you would put money on a position less favorable than 50/50? What do you consider the likelihood such that you think you can announce it to be false today? 99%? I'd happily offer 30 to 1 odds on this today and add a 3x buffer for you up to $1000 of my dollars if you're serious.

[bwanab]

I'm confused. In the original comment I pointed out that the article claims AI is a major topic when polls show that isn't the case. I still believe that in 2028 AI will not be a major topic as shown by polls and voting behavior.

I'm not sure how I'd formulate the bet, but maybe it could be "as of election day 2028, AI will not be a top five concern mentioned in the most recent open-ended poll by Gallup polling the American public. This bet will not be decided by a poll in which AI is specifically mentioned in the polling question."

[ToValueFunfetti]

Not clear on where you're confused. The article does not claim this is the state today, it says in 2028- did you misread? In any event I think this is entirely plausible, say >9%, based on trendlines and the fact that I hear about this constantly already- two of the candidates in my primary had a position on this and I'm not exactly in SF. I'm prepared to hand you as much as $1k in the 91% of worlds where this doesn't happen in exchange for 30x as much (eg. 30k) in the 9% of worlds where it does. EV for me is .91 * -1 + .09 * 30 = +1.79. You claim you can say already today that this is false; I assume that means you're >99% certain. EV for you is then .99 * 1 + .01 * -30 = +0.69 (nice). Thus there is a mutually beneficial trade at the >3x your position and <1/3x my position point, and I offer 30:1 odds. I don't care if this is a nominal one of my dollars to thirty of yours, $1k is just my limit.

I don't normally do this, but you brought up your willingness to bet so I figured I'd offer.

I didn't think it was possible you misread- you had like 5 replies calling this out, but I recall them being gray and maybe you have showdead disabled- but don't feel obliged to commit if your real probability is 97% for this.

This term:

>This bet will not be decided by a poll in which AI is specifically mentioned in the polling question.

I cannot honor. In the >9% of worlds where you are wrong, any poll that excludes AI is necessarily heavily biased against me. Better to pick a particular poll.

[offnominal]

> falsifiable claims that are, well, false

Oh, I didn't realize it was 2028 already!

[somebodythere]

This prediction can't be scored until the 2028 election cycle.

You may think it's very unlikely the prediction will have turned out to be correct by the 2028 election cycle, but that is not the same thing as the prediction being scorable as false today.

[reasonableklout]

AI is not yet a top 5 concern for the American public, but polls show that it is for DC staffers: https://x.com/TimSchnabel/status/2072725548405518574