Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom
An essay by Nora Belrose and Quintin Pope, AI Optimism, dated 27 February 2024. datetime of the post on optimists.ai, 27 February 2024.
- Issued by
- No issuing record yet. A missing record is a gap in coverage.
- Authors credited
- No authorship claim recorded yet. The source record lists Nora Belrose and Quintin Pope.
- Dates
- No date claim recorded yet. The source record gives the publication date as 2024-02-27.
- Exact source
- Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom AI Optimism (optimists.ai), the authors' blog · published 2024-02-27 · Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 2d5490c57aa2370bec464b9e4680bb0ac92e95b10416fd648b16e097021a1903). Current page as served on 2026-10-29, posted 27 February 2024; the page carries a later timestamp of 10 March 2024. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages.
Appears in
- Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →1 record on this document
Versions
No other versions of this document are recorded. The evidence applies to the source version listed above. Other versions, such as a preprint, working paper or journal publication, are not identified or substituted.
Documentary relations
Each relation is listed separately. Citing, crediting and reporting the use of a method are different acts, and none of them shows agreement or influence by itself.
Cites · 1
Explicit references in this document. Citation is neither agreement nor influence.
- Scheming AIs: Will AIs fake alignment during training in order to get power?Belrose and Pope's essay of February 2024 replies to Carlsmith's report Scheming AIs, which it names and quotes.2024-02-27 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Carlsmith, Scheming AIs (2023): document page →
Contests · 1
Propositions a passage of this document disputes, or a premise they depend on.
- Inner or deceptive misalignmentBelrose and Pope's essay of February 2024 argues that the counting argument for scheming in Carlsmith's report rests on an incorrect application of the principle of indifference, and that once the principle is rejected there is very little reason left to expect future AIs to become schemers.2024-02-27 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Inner or deceptive misalignment: propositions page →
Not recorded for this document: cited by · explicitly credits · reports using a method from · method reported as used by · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.