At my (German) university, the solution would have been to change from a "cumulative" thesis (which requires peer-reviewed papers) to a monograph-style one. Because the general rule was that your undertaking must be novel ar the time you submit your thesis topic, not necessarily at the tome the thesis itself is submitted (years later).
Why do you treat unpredictability as neutral? If something has a potentially existential, but completely unpredictable outcome, surely one should avoid heading for it?
Like, knowing that there is a limited number of plausible doom scenarios and what these are, would make me more confident in taking the risk than settling on "it's literally the singularity, we can't know what happens beyond".
Doom-post-RSI is still very much possible and should be avoided. It is not neutral. If I had a high-variance coin that would either kill or uplift humanity, I would not flip it. The status quo is preferable to extinction.
I am being _descriptive_ in my comments. I am not being _prescriptive_. Nowhere am I telling anyone what to do or what to think: quite the opposite. I am simply saying things that, to me, are obviously true.
I'm perhaps being... loose with my language when it comes to knowing things post-singularity. E.g. we can still discuss scenarios in which the takeoff is fast/slow, or what would be necessary to bring robotics/electricity/logistics to the wider world, what the limits of intelligence are (you can't RSI your way to a bioweapon if you lack a wetlab). That kinda thing. And it's even likely that RSI will be spikey: why would RSI in, say, machine learning, necessarily lead to superintelligence in, say, writing fiction? Or cooking a Michelin-star meal?
My main point is that doomers saying SUPER INTELLIGENCE IS ENOUGH TO KILL US ALL is baseless. That's all.
IA might be large enough to earn consideration, but generally scrapers just don't care about being good citizens. I work in the GLAM space and we offer OAI-PMH interfaces for the harvesting of our collections data - which doesn't stop companies from preferring to scrape our website for worse (less complete, less structured, less standardized) data instead.
Do they know it exists? On my site, some types of blocked bots are getting plain-text instructions saying why I'm blocking them and what they can do instead - and it seems to have worked in some cases.
Same application spectrum as CO2 fire extinguishers I'd imagine (which we use for expensive lab hardware that we don't want to get damaged by water, foam, ..., but which are utterly useless for anything more substantial becuase it just reignites).
I don't know if this is really about the public sphere as ut exists today. I suspect that the core idea is more along of the lines that in a world where policy is made by artificial super intelligences, you will need your own ASI to advocate on your behalf if your convictions are to have any impact at all.
The initial draft fucks up the meter in lines 3 and 8, the final version gets line 2 wrong ("venit meis") and is somewhat obnoxious with verses 2 and 8 basically repeating each other. The thinking trace is useless and gives us no clue why the model exchanged a bland, but metrically correct first distich for a more interesting, but metrically incorrect one.
In fact, the "careful" examination of its own output completely skips the erroneously modified half-verse in line 2 - now, tell me that's a coincidence and not a sign of bullshitting.
