Could we all be doomed, without ranked-choice voting?
We recorded 9 claims from this post. 4 were checked against evidence. 5 can’t be checked. 1 more is held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (9)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“I rather doubt that will happen, but I am not sure that it won’t.”
Our reading: An AI-induced extinction event that kills everyone is unlikely, though not ruled out.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“The goal of the companies is return to shareholders, not to return to humanity.”
Our reading: AI companies aim at returns to shareholders rather than benefit to humanity.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“What I am sure of, though, is that our chances to avoid serious consequences aren’t great if we control neither AI nor the companies that make AI.”
Our reading: If neither AI nor AI companies are controlled, society's chances of avoiding serious consequences are poor.
No horizon
Only if: if we control neither AI nor the companies that make AI
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“Indeed, what we have seen on the AI front so far in the US, for the most part, is voluntary guidelines – stuff that the companies are comfortable with.”
Our reading: US AI policy so far has mostly been voluntary guidelines the companies are comfortable with.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: This is a qualitative assessment of prominent federal initiatives, not a count of every federal, state, or local measure.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Forecast
“The default right now is regulatory capture: the companies will make the rules, telling the governments what they are and are not comfortable with. The government will go along.”
Our reading: By default, AI companies will write the rules for AI regulation and governments will go along.
No deadline stated Evidence as of
Limitation: The evidence is not a census of US AI regulation or industry lobbying.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“That has meant, for example, no tangible progress on getting the big companies to commit to revealing what data their models were trained on; we have transparency in name, but not in deed.”
Our reading: There has been no tangible progress in getting big AI companies to commit to disclosing their training data.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The result depends on distinguishing existing disclosures from commitments to disclose.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Causal claim
“Without data transparency, we can’t make sure our models are without bias, or even know the sources of the biases they hide within, we can’t truly understand the scope and limits of their generalization (which is central to understanding what they might do in unexpected circumstances) and we are hamstrung in our ability to mitigate their harmful consequences: what is unknown is hard to fix.”
Our reading: Without transparency about the data models were trained on, we can't make sure models are free of bias or even know the sources of their biases, we can't truly understand the scope and limits of their generalization, and we are hamstrung in our ability to mitigate their harmful consequences.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The supporting paper synthesizes several forms of access; their effects are not interchangeable.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“If we are to get the right regulatory regime for AI – one that protects consumers, without stifling innovation – we are going to need government to step up.”
Our reading: Government must step up to achieve an AI regulatory regime that protects consumers without stifling innovation.
No horizon
Qualifier: to get the right regulatory regime for AI
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“But I think ranked-choice-voting (or some similar alternative) is very much worth serious consideration.”
Our reading: Marcus thinks ranked-choice voting, or some similar alternative, is very much worth serious consideration.
No horizon
Qualifier: I think
Held from this post (1)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.