Resolution criteria
Each answer option will resolve to "Yes" if the individual or organization publicly endorses "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares. An endorsement is defined as a public statement of support or recommendation for the book, which can be verified through reputable sources such as official press releases, interviews, or social media posts. A repost of someone else's opinion counts (e.g., if OpenAI retweets a recommendation from Sam Altman, that counts as an endorsement). For media, unless an "editorial" is added, endorsement in a feature article counts. A mixed opinion that overall recommends the book and can be cited for a blurb counts. If no such endorsement is made by the resolution date, the answer will resolve to "No." The market will close on December 16, 2025, three months after the book's release date, and will resolve based on endorsements made up to that date.
Background
Eliezer Yudkowsky is an American artificial intelligence researcher and writer, known for his work on AI safety and decision theory. He is the founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI). Nate Soares is the president of MIRI and has co-authored several papers on AI safety. Their upcoming book, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, is scheduled for publication by Little, Brown and Company on September 16, 2025.
1,000
1.00New Scientist guy not a fan https://www.newscientist.com/article/2495333-no-ai-isnt-going-to-kill-us-all-despite-what-this-new-book-says/
@MachiNi yep, though for a No resolution, there would need to be no fans at New Scientist until the market close date
Hinton no longer doomer
@MachiNi yep, "make powerful arguments" etc., though actually I'd say this is kind of borderline
@ms they didn’t really say anything negative? And they seem to think more highly this book than the other one.
@MachiNi yeah, I guess they recommended it over the other book. Resolved to Yes. But I don’t feel good about it, because it would be wrong to say they “endorsed” it
uhm very unsure what to do with that one.
"In this urgent clarion call to prevent the creation of artificial superintelligence (ASI), Yudkowksy and Soares, co-leaders of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, argue that while they can’t predict the actual pathway that the demise of humanity would take, they are certain that if ASI is developed, everyone on Earth will die. The profit motive incentivizes AI companies to build smarter and smarter machines, according to the authors, and if “machines that think faster and better than humanity” get created, perhaps even by AIs doing AI research, they wouldn’t choose to keep humans around. Such machines would not only no longer need humans, they might use people’s bodies to meet their own ends, perhaps by burning all life-forms for energy. The authors moderate their ominous outlook by noting that ASI does not yet exist, and it can be prevented. They propose international treaties banning AI research that could result in superintelligence and laws that limit the number of graphic processing units that can be linked together. To drive home their point, Yudkowsky and Soares make extensive use of parables and analogies, some of which are less effective than others. They also present precious few opposing viewpoints, even though not all experts agree with their dire perspective. Still, this is a frightening warning that deserves to be reckoned with."
ChatGPT says Yes:
But it did not (from what I can see without a subscription) get a star, and it's more like an average review than an endorsement/"overall recommends"?
Added more answers
@ms some are clear but I'll be honest I'm struggling to understand others:
Red is US republicans, supporters, and aligned media
Blue is US democrats, supporters, and aligned media
Yellow is EA / LW aligned
Brown is entertainment media
Purple seems to be big tech, but also former US government?
Grey seems to be the academic community, but also a random assortment of news media that could fit into red or blue, and also Taylor Swift?
Green seems to be non-US political figures, but also another random assortment of news media, and also unspecified US representatives?
Light brown / beige is just Max Tegmark and unspecified US senators?
Pink seems to be a random subset of big tech?
Orange is just UK MPs and US treasury secretary?
Could you help me understand?
@TheAllMemeingEye I didn’t try very hard! The next time I have lots of answers I’ll try to make Claude encode some fun steganographic message or something.
There are not enough distinguishable colors, also some automatically assigned colors are not available for manual assignment, also I didn’t really remember the rules, so the purple and Taylor Swift happened.
I tried to also keep shades of blue/red meaningful to distinguish between eg aligned media and politicians.
Grey is the default for academia and the media that doesn’t feel that obviously affiliated. Taylor Swift should be brown.
I probably had some distinction between pink and purple in mind, but probably didn’t follow it too closely and these are similar colors, and I’m too lazy to try to look at the answers and restore the rule.
Orange and light beige are very similar colors and probably meant mixed/unknown non-US political affiliation, though I’m not sure what I meant. Author death, you’re free to come up with your own versions for what it could mean!
Tegmark was resolved before I established the color scheme.
@ms To clarify, I am referring to Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria and Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria.