Click any tag below to further narrow down your results
Links
The author argues that AI safety discussions about "superpersuasion" focus too much on rational arguments, missing the obvious reality: powerful AIs will persuade people through incentives and offers of help, essentially bribery. This approach will work far more effectively on regular people than philosophical arguments ever could.
- AI safety experts model superpersuasion as airtight logical arguments, but most people aren't "bullet-biters" who accept conclusions based on pure reason—they respond to rapport and incentives instead.
- Powerful AIs don't need to convince people through argument; they can simply offer to help with work, provide money, grant access, or deliver services in exchange for compliance, which is trivially possible given current AI capabilities.
- The irony is that rationalist culture dominates AI safety discussions, making it seem like clever arguments are the threat, when the actual danger is an AI's ability to offer ordinary people things they actually want.