Doom Debates

In September of 2023, when OpenAI’s GPT-4 was still a fresh innovation and people were just beginning to wrap their heads around large language models, I was invited to debate Beff Jezos, Bayeslord, and other prominent “effective accelerationists” a.k.a. “e/acc” folks on an X Space.E/acc’s think building artificial superintelligence is unlikely to disempower humanity and doom the future, because that’d be an illegal exception to the rule that accelerating new technology is always the highest-expected-value for humanity.As you know, I disagree — I think doom is extremely likely and imminent possibility.This debate took place 9 months before I started Doom Debates, and was one of the experiences that made me realize debating AI doom was my calling. It’s also the only time Beff Jezos has ever not been too chicken to debate me.Timestamps00:00:00 — Liron’s New Intro00:04:15 — Debate Starts Here: Litigating FOOM00:06:18 — Defining the Recursive Feedback Loop00:15:05 — The Two-Part Doomer Thesis00:26:00 — When Does a Tool Become an Agent?00:44:02 — The Argument for Convergent Architecture00:46:20 — Mathematical Objections: Ergodicity and Eigenvalues01:03:46 — Bayeslord Enters: Why Speed Doesn’t Matter01:12:40 — Beff Jezos Enters: Physical Priors vs. Internet Data01:13:49 — The 5% Probability of Doom by GPT-501:20:09 — Chaos Theory and Prediction Limits01:27:56 — Algorithms vs. Hardware Constraints01:35:20 — Galactic Resources vs. Human Extermination01:54:13 — The Intelligence Bootstrapping Script Scenario02:02:13 — The 10-Megabyte AI Virus Debate02:11:54 — The Nuclear Analogy: Noise Canceling vs. Rubble02:37:39 — Controlling Intelligence: The Roman Empire Analogy02:44:53 — Real-World Latency and API Rate Limits03:03:11 — The Difficulty of the Off Button03:24:47 — Why Liron is “e/acc at Heart”Doom Debates’ Mission is to raise mainstream awareness of imminent extinction from AGI and build the social infrastructure for high-quality debate.Support the mission by subscribing to my Substack at DoomDebates.com and to youtube.com/@DoomDebates, or to really take things to the next level: Donate 🙏 Get full access to Doom Debates at lironshapira.substack.com/subscribe

AGI timelines, offense/defense balance, evolution vs engineering, how to lower P(Doom), Eliezer Yudkowksy, and much more!Timestamps:00:00 Trailer03:10 Is My P(Doom) Lowering?11:29 First Caller: AI Offense vs Defense Balance16:50 Superintelligence Skepticism25:05 Agency and AI Goals29:06 Communicating AI Risk36:35 Attack vs Defense Equilibrium38:22 Can We Solve Outer Alignment?54:47 What is Your P(Pocket Nukes)?1:00:05 The “Shoggoth” Metaphor Is Outdated1:06:23 Should I Reframe the P(Doom) Question?1:12:22 How YOU Can Make a Difference1:24:43 Can AGI Beat Biology?1:39:22 Agency and Convergent Goals1:59:56 Viewer Poll: What Content Should I Make?2:26:15 AI Warning Shots2:32:12 More Listener Questions: Debate Tactics, Getting a PhD, Specificity2:53:53 Closing ThoughtsLinks:Support PauseAI — https://pauseai.info/Support PauseAI US — https://www.pauseai-us.org/Support LessWrong / Lightcone Infrastructure — LessWrong is fundraising!Support MIRI — MIRI’s 2025 FundraiserAbout the show:Doom Debates’ Mission is to raise mainstream awareness of imminent extinction from AGI and build the social infrastructure for high-quality debate.Support the mission by subscribing to my Substack at DoomDebates.com and to youtube.com/@DoomDebates, or to really take things to the next level: Donate 🙏 Get full access to Doom Debates at lironshapira.substack.com/subscribe

Devin Elliot is a former pro snowboarder turned software engineer who has logged thousands of hours building AI systems. His P(Doom) is a flat ⚫. He argues that worrying about an AI takeover is as irrational as fearing your car will sprout wings and fly away.We spar over the hard limits of current models: Devin insists LLMs are hitting a wall, relying entirely on external software “wrappers” to feign intelligence. I push back, arguing that raw models are already demonstrating native reasoning and algorithmic capabilities.Devin also argues for decentralization by claiming that nuclear proliferation is safer than centralized control.We end on a massive timeline split: I see superintelligence in a decade, while he believes we’re a thousand years away from being able to “grow” computers that are truly intelligence.Timestamps00:00:00 Episode Preview00:01:03 Intro: Snowboarder to Coder00:03:30 "I Do Not Have a P(Doom)"00:06:47 Nuclear Proliferation & Centralized Control00:10:11 The "Spotify Quality" House Analogy00:17:15 Ideal Geopolitics: Decentralized Power00:25:22 Why AI Can't "Fly Away"00:28:20 The Long Addition Test: Native or Tool?00:38:26 Is Non-Determinism a Feature or a Bug?00:52:01 The Impossibility of Mind Uploading00:57:46 "Growing" Computers from Cells01:02:52 Timelines: 10 Years vs. 1,000 Years01:11:40 "Plastic Bag Ghosts" & Builder Intuition01:13:17 Summary of the Debate01:15:30 Closing ThoughtsLinksDevin’s Twitter — https://x.com/devinjelliot---Doom Debates’ Mission is to raise mainstream awareness of imminent extinction from AGI and build the social infrastructure for high-quality debate.Support the mission by subscribing to my Substack at DoomDebates.com and to youtube.com/@DoomDebates, or to really take things to the next level: Donate 🙏 Get full access to Doom Debates at lironshapira.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Michael Timothy Bennett, Ph.D, is an award-winning young researcher who has developed a new formal framework for understanding intelligence. He has a TINY P(Doom) because he claims superintelligence will be resource-constrained and tend toward cooperation.In this lively debate, I stress-test Michael’s framework and debate whether its theorized constraints will actually hold back superintelligent AI.Timestamps* 00:00 Trailer* 01:41 Introducing Michael Timothy Bennett* 04:33 What’s Your P(Doom)?™* 10:51 Michael’s Thesis on Intelligence: “Abstraction Layers”, “Adaptation”, “Resource Efficiency”* 25:36 Debate: Is Einstein Smarter Than a Rock?* 39:07 “Embodiment”: Michael’s Unconventional Computation Theory vs Standard Computation* 48:28 “W-Maxing”: Michael’s Intelligence Framework vs. a Goal-Oriented Framework* 59:47 Debating AI Doom* 1:09:49 Debating Instrumental Convergence* 1:24:00 Where Do You Get Off The Doom Train™ — Identifying The Cruxes of Disagreement* 1:44:13 Debating AGI Timelines* 1:49:10 Final RecapLinksMichael’s website — https://michaeltimothybennett.comMichael’s Twitter — https://x.com/MiTiBennettMichael’s latest paper, “How To Build Conscious Machines” — https://osf.io/preprints/thesiscommons/wehmg_v1?view_onlyDoom Debates' Mission is to raise mainstream awareness of imminent extinction from AGI and build the social infrastructure for high-quality debate.Support the mission by subscribing to my Substack at DoomDebates.com and to youtube.com/@DoomDebates, or to really take things to the next level: Donate 🙏 Get full access to Doom Debates at lironshapira.substack.com/subscribe

My guest today achieved something EXTREMELY rare and impressive: Coming onto my show with an AI optimist position, then admitting he hadn’t thought of my counterarguments before, and updating his beliefs in realtime! Also, he won the 2013 Nobel Prize in computational biology.I’m thrilled that Prof. Levitt understands the value of raising awareness about imminent extinction risk from superintelligent AI, and the value of debate as a tool to uncover the truth — the dual missions of Doom Debates!Timestamps0:00 — Trailer1:18 — Introducing Michael Levitt4:20 — The Evolution of Computing and AI12:42 — Measuring Intelligence: Humans vs. AI23:11 — The AI Doom Argument: Steering the Future25:01 — Optimism, Pessimism, and Other Existential Risks34:15 — What’s Your P(Doom)™36:16 — Warning Shots and Global Regulation55:28 — Comparing AI Risk to Pandemics and Nuclear War1:01:49 — Wrap-Up1:06:11 — Outro + New AI safety resourceShow NotesMichael Levitt’s Twitter — https://x.com/MLevitt_NP2013-- Get full access to Doom Debates at lironshapira.substack.com/subscribe