Interesting post, certainly an interesting comparison and an existence proof that technology that’s somewhat difficult to create but trivial to distribute and reproduce can be regulated to oblivion in large sections of the world for decades.
A point conspicuous by its absence: the overregulation of GM crops was (and remains) a mistake, or at the least is nearly universally agreed to be so by the people with the most technical knowledge (e.g. people with PhDs in plant biology).
I understand whether it was wise to grossly curb deployment of GM crops was not the point of the post, merely whether it was politically feasible starting with a relatively small contingent of protesters. I’m still miffed that the anti-science and overall almost certainly negative-EV-ness of the GM overregulation wasn’t mentioned, especially given quotes like “This coincided with key ‘trigger events’ like Mad Cow Disease and the arrival of GM crops in March 1996” which would suggest a causal connection between the two.
Thank you for your comments Kasey! Glad you think it’s an interesting comparison. I agree with you that GMOs were over-regulated in Europe. Perhaps I should have said explicitly that the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. I do make a brief caveat in the Intro that I’m not comparing the “credibility of AI safety concerns (which appear more legitimate than GMO concerns)”, though this deserves more detail.
I suppose an interesting exercise for another research project could be to try to tally up in hindsight how many activist/protest movements seem directionally correct or mistaken in retrospect (eg anti-GM seems wrong, anti-nuclear seems wrong, anti-fossil-fuels seems right). I think even if the data came in that activists are usually wrong this wouldn’t actually move me very much as the inside view arguments are quite strong for AI risk I think.
Sounds interesting Oscar, though I wonder what reference class you’d use … all protests? A unique feature of AI protests is that many AI researchers are themselves protesting. If we are comparing groups on epistemics, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (founded by Manhattan Project scientists) might be a closer comparison than GM protestors (who were led by Greenpeace, farmers etc., not people working in biotech). I also agree that considering inside-view arguments about AI risk are important.
Interesting post, certainly an interesting comparison and an existence proof that technology that’s somewhat difficult to create but trivial to distribute and reproduce can be regulated to oblivion in large sections of the world for decades.
A point conspicuous by its absence: the overregulation of GM crops was (and remains) a mistake, or at the least is nearly universally agreed to be so by the people with the most technical knowledge (e.g. people with PhDs in plant biology).
I understand whether it was wise to grossly curb deployment of GM crops was not the point of the post, merely whether it was politically feasible starting with a relatively small contingent of protesters. I’m still miffed that the anti-science and overall almost certainly negative-EV-ness of the GM overregulation wasn’t mentioned, especially given quotes like “This coincided with key ‘trigger events’ like Mad Cow Disease and the arrival of GM crops in March 1996” which would suggest a causal connection between the two.
Thank you for your comments Kasey! Glad you think it’s an interesting comparison. I agree with you that GMOs were over-regulated in Europe. Perhaps I should have said explicitly that the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. I do make a brief caveat in the Intro that I’m not comparing the “credibility of AI safety concerns (which appear more legitimate than GMO concerns)”, though this deserves more detail.
I suppose an interesting exercise for another research project could be to try to tally up in hindsight how many activist/protest movements seem directionally correct or mistaken in retrospect (eg anti-GM seems wrong, anti-nuclear seems wrong, anti-fossil-fuels seems right). I think even if the data came in that activists are usually wrong this wouldn’t actually move me very much as the inside view arguments are quite strong for AI risk I think.
Sounds interesting Oscar, though I wonder what reference class you’d use … all protests? A unique feature of AI protests is that many AI researchers are themselves protesting. If we are comparing groups on epistemics, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (founded by Manhattan Project scientists) might be a closer comparison than GM protestors (who were led by Greenpeace, farmers etc., not people working in biotech). I also agree that considering inside-view arguments about AI risk are important.