Saying 'AI safety research is a Pascal's Mugging' isn't a strong response

Abstract

The article argues that dismissing AI safety research as a Pascal’s Mugging is a weak response. Pascal’s Mugging is a thought experiment which involves an extortionist with a gun and an incredibly high reward for a trivial action. The article argues that the analogy is flawed because AI safety research is not based on such arbitrary and disproportionate rewards. Instead, the article posits that the chances of a breakthrough in AI safety are small, but real, similar to the likelihood that a single vote or researcher might affect an election or the discovery of a cure for malaria. The article presents a hypothetical calculation to demonstrate that even a small increase in the chance of achieving a positive outcome, due to the efforts of AI safety researchers, could be considered a worthwhile investment. The article contends that the focus of the debate on AI safety should not be on the possibility of an astronomically large reward, but rather on the feasibility of making progress on the problem itself. – AI-generated abstract.