2026-09-29XQuote

Source item

In the AI-doomer argument, broad multidisciplinary thinkers like @sapinker have suggested the "kill-us-all" scenarios are preposterous. The AI researchers, that are most negatively outspoken, say that their voice should count more, because they are closest to AI and know what it can do. Everyone watching this debate should read about Tetlock's work (see below). The generalists (foxes) and much better predictors than the specialists (hedgehogs) who are to close to the problem to accurately predict broader implications. So "no points" for the "we know more" argument. In fact, it works against you.

Quoted context

These are the quoted author’s words.

“One of the main lessons to come out of Tetlock’s work is that the best generalist forecasters are usually better at telling the future than domain-specific experts, even when it comes to those experts’ areas of study. This is because forecasting itself is its own science that requires a unique way of thinking, and a person having a great deal of knowledge about a field is no guarantee that they have good epistemological habits. If you’re going to ask, for example, whether American democracy is falling apart, an expert might start by making a superficial comparison between the modern US and the Weimar Republic. Someone with a forecasting mindset would be more likely to begin with a question like “how often do advanced democracies slide into dictatorships?” The answer is not very often.” Important reminder from @RichardHanania that domain experts are not the best at predicting what happens, even in their own domains. https://t.co/ePkfdfNKHU
dawallach ↗