Formal Arguments
This section presents formal, structured arguments about AI risk. Rather than mixing claims and evidence throughout narrative text, we lay out explicit premises, evidence, and logical structures.
Why Formal Arguments?
Section titled “Why Formal Arguments?”| Benefit | Description |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Explicit premises make it clear exactly what each argument claims |
| Falsifiability | Clear what evidence would change the conclusion |
| Steelmanning | Present the best version of each position |
| Intellectual honesty | Express uncertainty (“I assign 30% to P2”) rather than pretending certainty |
Argument Structure
Section titled “Argument Structure”Each argument page follows this format:
- Thesis Statement: One-sentence summary
- Formal Structure: Premises (P1, P2, …) leading to conclusion (C)
- Evidence for Each Premise: Empirical data, theoretical reasoning, expert opinions
- Objections and Responses: Strongest counterarguments and potential replies
- Cruxes: What evidence would change the conclusion?
The Arguments
Section titled “The Arguments”On Existential Risk
On Alignment Difficulty
How to Engage
Section titled “How to Engage”As a skeptic: Read the AGAINST case first, then identify which premises in the FOR case you reject.
As concerned: Read the FOR case first, then seriously engage with the AGAINST case.
As uncertain: Read both, identify which premises you find most/least convincing, and track your credences.
See also: Key Debates for less formal explorations of contested questions.