Perhaps they would be even more convinced by the google search than if a person argued with them about it.

That is still much different from "The AI mind controls people, hacks the nukes, and ends the world".

Its that second part that is the the fantasy land situation that requires extraordinary evidence.

But, this is how conversations about doomsday AI always go. People say "Well isn't AI kinda good at this extremely vague thing Y, sometimes? Imagine if AI was infinitely good at Y! That means that by extrapolation, the world ends!".

And that covers basically every single AI doom argument that anyone ever makes.

"Show me the AI mindcontrolling people!" AI mindcontrolling people is what we're trying to avoid seeing.

The trick is, in the world in which AI doom is in the future, what would you expect to see now that is different from the world in which AI doom is not in the future?

No actually. This is another mistake that the AI doomers make. They pretend like a demand for evidence means that the world has to end first.

Instead, what would be perfectly good evidence, would be evidence of significant incremental harm that requires regulation on its own, independent of any doom argument.

In between "the world literally ends by magic diamond nanobots and mind controlling AI" and "where we are today" would be many many many situations of incrementally escalating and measurable harm that we would see in real life, decades before the world ending magic happens.

We can just treat this like any other technology, and regulate it when it causes real world harm. Because before the world ends by magic, there would be significant real world harm that is similar to any other problem in the world that we handle perfectly well.

Its funny because you committing the exact mistake that I was criticizing in my original post, where you did the absolutely massive jump and hand waved it away.

> what would you expect to see now that is different from the world in which AI doom is not in the future?

What I would expect is for the people who claim to care about AI doom to actually be trying to measure real world harm.

Ironically, I think the people who are coming up with increasingly thin excuses as for why they don't have to find evidence are increasing the likelyhood of such AI doom much more than anyone else because they are abandoning the most effective method of actually convincing the world of the real world damage that AI could cause.

> What I would expect is for the people who claim to care about AI doom to actually be trying to measure real world harm.

Why bother? If escalating harm is a thing, everyone will notice. We don't need to bolster that, because ordinary society has it handled.

Yes we would. Unless you are one of those people who think that the magic doom nanobots are going to be invented overnight.

My comparisions to someone who is worried about literal magic, from harry potter, is apt.

But at that point, if you are worried about magic showing up instantly, then your position is basically not falsifiable. You can always retreat to some untestable, unfalsifiable magic.

Like there is actually nothing I could say, no evidence I could show to ever convince someone out of that position.

On the other hand, my position is actually fasifiable. There is absolutely all sorts of non world ending evidence that could convince me to think that AI is dangerous.

But nobody on the doomer side seems to care about any of that. Instead they invent positions that seem almost tailor made to avoid being falsifiable or disprovable so that they can continue to believe them despite any evidence to the contrary.

As in, if I were to purposeful invent an idea or philosophy that is impossible to be disproved or convinced out of the "I can't show you evidence because the world will end" position is what I would invent.

> you'll come around,

Do you admit that you won't though? Do you admit that no matter what evidence is shown to you, that you can just retreat and say that the magic could happen at any time?

Or even if this isn't you literally, that someone in your position could dismiss all counter evidence, no matter what, and nobody could convince someone out of that with evidence?

I am not sure how someone could ever possibly engage with you seriously on any of this, if that is your position.

There is, it is just very hard to obtain. Various formal proofs would do. On upper bounds. On controllability. On scalability of safety techniques.

The manhattan project scientists did check whether they'd ignite the atmosphere before detonating their first prototype. Yes, that was much simpler task. But there's no rule in nature that says proving a system to be safe must be as easy as creating the system. Especially when the concern is that the system adaptive and adversarial.

Recursive self-improvement is a positive feedback loop, like nuclear chain reactions, like virus replication. So if we have an AI that can program then we better make sure that it either cannot sustain such a positive feedback loop or that it remains controllable beyond criticality. Given the complexity of the task it appears unlikely that a simple ten-page paper proving this will show up on arxiv. But if one did that'd be great.

>> You won't necessarily get the escalating harm even if AI doom is real though

> Yes we would.

So what does guarantee a visible catastrophe that won't be attributed to human operators using a non-agentic AI incorrectly? We keep scaling and the systems will be treated as assistants/optimizers and it's always the operators fault. Until we roughly reach human-level on some relevant metrics. And at that point there's a very narrow complexity range from idiot to genius (human brains don't vary by orders of magnitude!). So as far as hardware goes this could be a very narrow range and we could shoot straight from "non-agentic sub-human AI" to "agentic superintelligence" in short timescales once the hardware has that latent capacity. And up until that point it will always have been a human error, lax corporate policies, insufficient filtering of the training set or whatever.

And it's not that it must happen this way. Just that there doesn't seem anything ruling it and similar pathways out.