169 – S&E BS re AGI

Steven and Eneasz discuss the latest timeline shifts regarding the advent of superhuman general intelligence. Then in the LW posts we got greatly sidetracked by politics (stupid mind-killer!).


Two-year update on my personal AI timelines on LessWrong

Robert Wiblin on kissing your kids

Lex Fridman podcast

Jack Clark (AI policy guy) on AI policy

Scott Alexander on slowing AI progress

Guide to working in AI policy and strategy

0:00:42 Feedback
0:08:20 Main Topic
1:13:29 LW posts
2:11:40 Thank the Patron

Hey look, we have a discord! What could possibly go wrong?

Also merch!

Rationality: From AI to Zombies, The Podcast, and the other podcast

LessWrong posts Discussed in this Episode:

My Strange Beliefs

Posting on Politics

The Two-Party Swindle

Next Episode’s Sequence Posts:

The American System and Misleading Labels

Stop Voting For Nincompoops

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to 169 – S&E BS re AGI

  1. Steve C says:

    I’m a little behind, just started listening to this episode.

    A couple of notes:

    AOC and Ted Cruz are not both “wealthy, upper class”.

    AOC was born in the Bronx, went to Boston University, and when she graduated she worked as a bartender” to help her mother—a house cleaner and school bus driver—fight foreclosure of their home.”

    AOC has assets between $3K and $45K, and student loan debt between $15K and $50K. No other earned income, <$400 in unearned income


    Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and his parents owned a company that did seismic studies for oil companies. He attended private high schools, Princeton undergrad, and Harvard Law School. Then he clerked for a Supreme Court Justice.

    Ted Cruz – minimum $3.6M assets, maybe $7M that maximum.

    I don't think they have much in common.

    As far as Greta Thunberg, can you provide a source to back up your claim that her argument was "we are literally all going to die in less than ten years"

    I found this, which is very different:
    Thunberg said that the world’s remaining carbon budget needed to fall below 570 gigatons in the next eight years to even have a chance of stopping the Earth from heating 1.5º Celsius—the point at which climate catastrophe becomes the norm.

    “With today’s emissions levels, the remaining budget is gone in less than eight years. These aren’t anyone’s views. This is the science,” Thunberg said. The numbers were cited from the International Panel on Climate Change’s 2018 damning report about the scale of the climate crisis.

    And this:
    Thunberg in her new book, “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”

    AOC said "“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” but that was taken out of context and she said it was dry humor + sarcasm. I saw the context, I think she is right.

    Update as you see fit.

    • BayesianAdmin says:

      Great right up, I appreciate it! I have virtually no memory of the specifics of this conversation but I’ll assume you’re recounting of our discussion is accurate. We should have been clearer in whatever point we were making. 🙂 I can’t remember the context, but I can only guess that I agreed with “AOC is wealthy” because the run of the mill congressperson makes like 200k. But that’s a far cry from “born into millions” and we should have been clear about that (again, I have no idea what point we were making 😉 ) Consider me updated. 👍

  2. Steve C says:

    Thanks for following up.
    The context was that members of Congress have more in common with each other than with their constituents, because they are [generally] “wealthy, upper class”.
    Maybe that is true in general, but the specific example you gave was definitely inaccurate. It had the additional effect of making AOC look like a pretender, when in the economic sphere at least, she is authentic. Not a big deal, but we don’t need inaccurate statements being spread against either side.

    The other context was that Greta Thunberg was accused of saying “”we are literally all going to die in less than ten years”, which she never said, and never really implied. Again, inaccurate statements that have the effect of casting doubt on climate science in general is not helpful.

    I don’t mean to be a nitpicker, and I know you guys have your heart in the right place, but you have a pulpit, and I hate to see it misused even unintentionally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.