Skip to content
Longterm Wiki
Back

There's No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence

web

Credibility Rating

3/5
Good(3)

Good quality. Reputable source with community review or editorial standards, but less rigorous than peer-reviewed venues.

Rating inherited from publication venue: MIRI

A widely-cited essay by Eliezer Yudkowsky applying social psychology to explain why AGI risk fails to trigger collective action, making it a key piece in understanding coordination failures around AI safety.

Metadata

Importance: 78/100blog postprimary source

Summary

Yudkowsky argues that unlike other catastrophic risks, AGI lacks a clear 'fire alarm' moment that would create social permission to take the threat seriously. Using the psychology of pluralistic ignorance, he explains why people fail to act on genuine danger signals and why the absence of a socially-sanctioned alarm makes AGI preparedness uniquely difficult. He concludes that we should not wait for such an alarm before acting on AGI safety.

Key Points

  • Fire alarms don't provide better evidence of fire than smoke—they create 'common knowledge' that makes it socially safe to react without fear of embarrassment.
  • Pluralistic ignorance causes people to suppress reactions to real dangers when others appear calm, as shown by Latane and Darley's 1968 smoke-filled room experiments.
  • There is no AGI equivalent of a fire alarm—no socially-recognized signal that will make it acceptable to treat AGI as an urgent, serious risk.
  • People misinterpret their hesitation to act on AGI risk as epistemic uncertainty about probability, when it is actually social fear of looking foolish.
  • Waiting for a clear warning signal before engaging with AGI safety is a mistake because such a signal may never come, or may come too late.

Cited by 2 pages

Cached Content Preview

HTTP 200Fetched Mar 20, 202647 KB
[Skip to content](https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/#content)

# There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence

- [October 13, 2017](https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/)
- [Eliezer Yudkowsky](https://intelligence.org/author/eliezer/)

* * *

What is the function of a fire alarm?

One might think that the function of a fire alarm is to provide you with important evidence about a fire existing, allowing you to change your policy accordingly and exit the building.

In the classic experiment by Latane and Darley in 1968, eight groups of three students each were asked to fill out a questionnaire in a room that shortly after began filling up with smoke. Five out of the eight groups didn’t react or report the smoke, even as it became dense enough to make them start coughing. Subsequent manipulations showed that a lone student will respond 75% of the time; while a student accompanied by two actors told to feign apathy will respond only 10% of the time. This and other experiments seemed to pin down that what’s happening is pluralistic ignorance. We don’t want to look panicky by being afraid of what isn’t an emergency, so we try to look calm while glancing out of the corners of our eyes to see how others are reacting, but of course they are also trying to look calm.

(I’ve read a number of replications and variations on this research, and the effect size is blatant. I would not expect this to be one of the results that dies to the replication crisis, and I haven’t yet heard about the replication crisis touching it. But we have to put a maybe-not marker on everything now.)

A fire alarm creates common knowledge, in the you-know-I-know sense, that there is a fire; after which it is socially safe to react. When the fire alarm goes off, you know that everyone else knows there is a fire, you know you won’t lose face if you proceed to exit the building.

The fire alarm doesn’t tell us with certainty that a fire is there. In fact, I can’t recall one time in my life when, exiting a building on a fire alarm, there was an actual fire. Really, a fire alarm is _weaker_ evidence of fire than smoke coming from under a door.

But the fire alarm tells us that it’s socially okay to react to the fire. It promises us with certainty that we won’t be embarrassed if we now proceed to exit in an orderly fashion.

It seems to me that this is one of the cases where people have mistaken beliefs about what they believe, like when somebody loudly endorsing their city’s team to win the big game will back down as soon as asked to bet. They haven’t consciously distinguished the rewarding exhilaration of shouting that the team will win, from the feeling of anticipating the team will win.

When people look at the smoke coming from under the door, I think they think their uncertain wobbling feeling comes from not assigning the fire a high-enough probability of really being there, and that they’re reluctant to act for fear of wasting effort and time. If so, I think

... (truncated, 47 KB total)
Resource ID: 599472695a5fba70 | Stable ID: N2NjZDgwOT