I'm predicting a 10-25% probability that Russia will use a weapon of mass destruction (likely nuclear) before 2024. This is based on only a few hours of thinking about it with little background knowledge.
Russian pro-war propagandists are hinting at use of nuclear weapons, according to the latest BBC podcast Ukrainecast episode. [Ukrainecast] What will Putin do next? #ukrainecast
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/145068892 via @PodcastAddict
There's a general sense that, in light of recent losses, something needs to change. My limited understanding sees 4 options:
Continue on the current course despite mounting criticism. Try to make the Ukrainians lives difficult by targeting their infrastructure, limit losses until winter, and try to reorganize during winter. This seems a pretty good option for now, even though I doubt Russia can really shore up its deeply set weaknesses. They can probably prepare to dig in, threaten and punish soldiers for fleeing. This wouldn't go well for either party long-term, but Russia might bet on outlasting/undermining Western support. Probability: 40%?
Negotiation: I don't think Putin wants this seriously, as even the status quo could be construed as a loss. Ukraine will have a strong bargaining position and demand a lot. Undesirable option. Maybe 10%? 20%? (Metaculus predicts 8% before 2023: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/10046/ukraine--russia-peace-talks-2022/)
Full-scale mobilisation of the population and the economy. This is risky for Putin: there's supposedly a large anti-war sentiment in Russian culture, a legacy of the enormous losses during the 2nd World War. People don't like to join a poorly-equipped poorly managed and losing army, even if it were a good cause.. This may be chosen, Putin may be misinformed and badly reading the public's sentiment. I have no idea how this would develop internally. I doubt it will make a big difference in the course of the war, except by prolonging the war a bit. Maybe 25%? Maybe 50% if Putin underestimates public resistance.
Escalation by other means: I don't know how many options Russia has. Chemical weapons, electro magnetic pulse, a single tactical nuclear strike on the battlefield for deterrence, multiple nuclear strikes for strategic reasons, population strike for deterrence. In the mind of Putin, I can see this as preferable: it leads to a potential military advantage, has limited risk for destabilising his internal power base. I don't know how the international community would respond to this, nor how Putin thinks the international community would respond. In my (uninformed) view, only China can make a real difference here as the West already has stringent sanctions. I don't know how China would respond to this. They wouldn't like it, but I think the West won't really punish China for its support in the short term. I'd say on this inside view, 10-25% seems reasonable. I'm setting the point estimate at 15%.
One thing I would like to add is that the field will need to find significant (>20x) cost reductions to deploy at a scale relevant to pandemic suppression. This seems very doable, if investments in R&D are made. What's the level of current & planned investments?
Also, I would expect the indoor chemistry issue to require decent ventilation/filtration at any relevant UVC intensity? This would unfortunately raise the cost and limit the flexibility of UVC
I'd be cautious drawing conclusions based on one single question about a complex topic. I think different framings would paint a more nuanced picture.
For example "left" has different meanings in different countries. I often hear US Democrats described as left. As a Dutch person where we often have 10+ political parties to choose from, that's crazy. The current Republican Party is a far-right party. Democrats cover the whole rest of the spectrum.
I still think EA would be left-leaning though. But an EA-inspired political party would look very different from left-wing parties.
I would really like to see agree/disagree votes on posts! I think they've added a lot to the comment section, and will be similarly meaningful to posts (even though many posts are complex and make multiple claims).
I also wouldn't view a "confused (?)" react as negative, and as comment writer would actually find it very useful to know when I should edit a comment to clarify!
Actually a question for @Robert_Wiblin : how do you approach an interview like this with someone from a company which some/many believe is making very bad decisions?
Jan Leike has a very different role than eg Sam Altman, but still.. I'm curious whether we'll hear an interested podcast host, or critical interviewer.
Doesn't 4 years seem like a ridiculously short time to achieve such a difficult goal? What kind of reference class does he think this problem belongs in, in terms of time and scale required? (E.g. atomic bomb?, HIV antivirals?, Hard mathematical problem?)
I'm predicting a 10-25% probability that Russia will use a weapon of mass destruction (likely nuclear) before 2024. This is based on only a few hours of thinking about it with little background knowledge.
Russian pro-war propagandists are hinting at use of nuclear weapons, according to the latest BBC podcast Ukrainecast episode. [Ukrainecast] What will Putin do next? #ukrainecast https://podcastaddict.com/episode/145068892 via @PodcastAddict
There's a general sense that, in light of recent losses, something needs to change. My limited understanding sees 4 options:
Continue on the current course despite mounting criticism. Try to make the Ukrainians lives difficult by targeting their infrastructure, limit losses until winter, and try to reorganize during winter. This seems a pretty good option for now, even though I doubt Russia can really shore up its deeply set weaknesses. They can probably prepare to dig in, threaten and punish soldiers for fleeing. This wouldn't go well for either party long-term, but Russia might bet on outlasting/undermining Western support. Probability: 40%?
Negotiation: I don't think Putin wants this seriously, as even the status quo could be construed as a loss. Ukraine will have a strong bargaining position and demand a lot. Undesirable option. Maybe 10%? 20%? (Metaculus predicts 8% before 2023: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/10046/ukraine--russia-peace-talks-2022/)
Full-scale mobilisation of the population and the economy. This is risky for Putin: there's supposedly a large anti-war sentiment in Russian culture, a legacy of the enormous losses during the 2nd World War. People don't like to join a poorly-equipped poorly managed and losing army, even if it were a good cause.. This may be chosen, Putin may be misinformed and badly reading the public's sentiment. I have no idea how this would develop internally. I doubt it will make a big difference in the course of the war, except by prolonging the war a bit. Maybe 25%? Maybe 50% if Putin underestimates public resistance.
Escalation by other means: I don't know how many options Russia has. Chemical weapons, electro magnetic pulse, a single tactical nuclear strike on the battlefield for deterrence, multiple nuclear strikes for strategic reasons, population strike for deterrence. In the mind of Putin, I can see this as preferable: it leads to a potential military advantage, has limited risk for destabilising his internal power base. I don't know how the international community would respond to this, nor how Putin thinks the international community would respond. In my (uninformed) view, only China can make a real difference here as the West already has stringent sanctions. I don't know how China would respond to this. They wouldn't like it, but I think the West won't really punish China for its support in the short term. I'd say on this inside view, 10-25% seems reasonable. I'm setting the point estimate at 15%.
Great summary!
One thing I would like to add is that the field will need to find significant (>20x) cost reductions to deploy at a scale relevant to pandemic suppression. This seems very doable, if investments in R&D are made. What's the level of current & planned investments?
Also, I would expect the indoor chemistry issue to require decent ventilation/filtration at any relevant UVC intensity? This would unfortunately raise the cost and limit the flexibility of UVC
Also, in the spirit of inclusion: using "liberals" to describe leftists is very US-centric language
I'd be cautious drawing conclusions based on one single question about a complex topic. I think different framings would paint a more nuanced picture.
For example "left" has different meanings in different countries. I often hear US Democrats described as left. As a Dutch person where we often have 10+ political parties to choose from, that's crazy. The current Republican Party is a far-right party. Democrats cover the whole rest of the spectrum.
I still think EA would be left-leaning though. But an EA-inspired political party would look very different from left-wing parties.
Nice to see the forum keeps being innovated.
I would really like to see agree/disagree votes on posts! I think they've added a lot to the comment section, and will be similarly meaningful to posts (even though many posts are complex and make multiple claims).
I also wouldn't view a "confused (?)" react as negative, and as comment writer would actually find it very useful to know when I should edit a comment to clarify!
Relatedly: what role does he think he/the alignment department should have in these decisions?
Actually a question for @Robert_Wiblin : how do you approach an interview like this with someone from a company which some/many believe is making very bad decisions?
Jan Leike has a very different role than eg Sam Altman, but still.. I'm curious whether we'll hear an interested podcast host, or critical interviewer.
What is Leike's role in any development/deployment decision of OpenAI? Does he (or the alignment department) have veto power?
Relatedly, does he not wish OpenAI had taken things more slowly and given him more time?
Doesn't 4 years seem like a ridiculously short time to achieve such a difficult goal? What kind of reference class does he think this problem belongs in, in terms of time and scale required? (E.g. atomic bomb?, HIV antivirals?, Hard mathematical problem?)