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
“I rather doubt that will happen, but I am not sure that it won’t.”
What we tested: An AI-induced extinction event that kills everyone is unlikely, though not ruled out.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The goal of the companies is return to shareholders, not to return to humanity.”
What we tested: AI companies aim at returns to shareholders rather than benefit to humanity.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: If neither AI nor AI companies are controlled, society's chances of avoiding serious consequences are poor.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: US AI policy so far has mostly been voluntary guidelines the companies are comfortable with.
What happened: The announcement directly establishes that the participating companies accepted voluntary commitments. Acceptance supports the ordinary reading of company comfort, without proving their private preferences. (The American Presidency Project, reproducing White House remarks, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: By default, AI companies will write the rules for AI regulation and governments will go along.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: There has been no tangible progress in getting big AI companies to commit to disclosing their training data.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: 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.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: Government must step up to achieve an AI regulatory regime that protects consumers without stifling innovation.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“But I think ranked-choice-voting (or some similar alternative) is very much worth serious consideration.”
What we tested: Marcus thinks ranked-choice voting, or some similar alternative, is very much worth serious consideration.
Held from this post (1)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.