Laplace's rule of succession argument for AI timelines - Revision history

Issa at 02:04, 5 April 2021

2021-04-05T02:04:57Z

Issa at 01:51, 5 April 2021

2021-04-05T01:51:34Z

Issa at 22:54, 31 March 2020

2020-03-31T22:54:16Z

Issa at 22:53, 31 March 2020

2020-03-31T22:53:08Z

Issa at 22:52, 31 March 2020

2020-03-31T22:52:52Z

Issa: Created page with "The '''Laplace's rule of succession argument for AI timelines''' uses Laplace's rule of succession to estimate when humans will create AGI. Th..."

2020-03-31T22:52:21Z

Created page with "The '''Laplace's rule of succession argument for AI timelines''' uses Laplace's rule of succession to estimate when humans will create AGI. Th..."

New page

The '''Laplace's rule of succession argument for AI timelines''' uses [[wikipedia:Rule of succession|Laplace's rule of succession]] to estimate when humans will create AGI. The estimate relies only on the number of years humans have spent trying to create an AI (about 60 years) and the fact that humans still haven't created an AGI (i.e. in Laplace's rule of succession, each outcome so far has been a failure).

see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines
-[[Tom Davidson]] argues against using Laplace's rule in his semi-informative priors report.<ref>https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/report-semi-informative-priors Search for "I’m skeptical about simple priors." and "I’m suspicious of Laplace’s rule, an example of an uninformative prior."</ref> I don't quite agree with Davidson's reasoning here. If we're trying to estimate how long a building would stay standing, it seems like we should use evidence from all other buildings we know about. If we had never seen a building before, then the naive reasoning he uses would be wrong but still reasonable (in the sense that with so little data, everything else would get it wrong as well).
+[[Tom Davidson]] argues against using Laplace's rule in his semi-informative priors report.<ref>https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/report-semi-informative-priors Search for "I’m skeptical about simple priors." and "I’m suspicious of Laplace’s rule, an example of an uninformative prior."</ref> I don't quite agree with Davidson's reasoning here. If we're trying to estimate how long a building would stay standing, it seems like we should use evidence from all other buildings we know about. If we had never seen a building before, then the naive reasoning he uses would be wrong but still reasonable (in the sense that with so little data, everything else would get it wrong as well). There's more in [https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/report-semi-informative-priors#LinkingTheSunrise this section].
 ==References==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 5 April 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:
	see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines		see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines

		+	[[Tom Davidson]] argues against using Laplace's rule in his semi-informative priors report.<ref>https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/report-semi-informative-priors Search for "I’m skeptical about simple priors." and "I’m suspicious of Laplace’s rule, an example of an uninformative prior."</ref> I don't quite agree with Davidson's reasoning here. If we're trying to estimate how long a building would stay standing, it seems like we should use evidence from all other buildings we know about. If we had never seen a building before, then the naive reasoning he uses would be wrong but still reasonable (in the sense that with so little data, everything else would get it wrong as well).
		+
		+	==References==
		+
		+	<references/>
		+
		+	[[Category:AI safety]]
	[[Category:AI timelines arguments]]		[[Category:AI timelines arguments]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:54, 31 March 2020
Line 2:		Line 2:

	see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines		see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines
		+
		+	[[Category:AI timelines arguments]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:53, 31 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The '''Laplace's rule of succession argument for AI timelines''' uses [[wikipedia:Rule of succession\|Laplace's rule of succession]] to estimate when humans will create AGI. The estimate relies only on the number of years humans have spent trying to create an AGI (about 60 years) and the fact that humans still haven't created an AGI (i.e. in Laplace's rule of succession, each outcome so far has been a failure).	+	The '''Laplace's rule of succession argument for AI timelines''' uses [[wikipedia:Rule of succession\|Laplace's rule of succession]] to estimate when humans will create AGI. The estimate relies only on the number of years humans have spent trying to create an AGI (about 60 years) and the fact that humans still haven't created an AGI (i.e. in the formalism of Laplace's rule of succession, each outcome so far has been a failure).

	see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines		see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:52, 31 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The '''Laplace's rule of succession argument for AI timelines''' uses [[wikipedia:Rule of succession\|Laplace's rule of succession]] to estimate when humans will create AGI. The estimate relies only on the number of years humans have spent trying to create an AI (about 60 years) and the fact that humans still haven't created an AGI (i.e. in Laplace's rule of succession, each outcome so far has been a failure).	+	The '''Laplace's rule of succession argument for AI timelines''' uses [[wikipedia:Rule of succession\|Laplace's rule of succession]] to estimate when humans will create AGI. The estimate relies only on the number of years humans have spent trying to create an AGI (about 60 years) and the fact that humans still haven't created an AGI (i.e. in Laplace's rule of succession, each outcome so far has been a failure).

	see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines		see https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/Ayu5im98u8FeMWoBZ/my-personal-cruxes-for-working-on-ai-safety#AI_timelines