I’ve worked in advocacy for EA causes for a bit, so I definitely believe in the power of it, but I also think the Overton window is a pretty crucial consideration for folks who are trying to mobilize the public. I’m guessing this is a popular view among people who work in advocacy for EA causes, but I might be wrong.
To be fair, I do think there could be value in making bold asks outside the Overton window. James Ozden has a really good piece about this. I think groups like DxE and PETA have done this for the animal movement, and it seems totally plausible to me that this has had a net positive effect.
But on the other hand, I think lots of the tangible changes we’ve seen for farmed animals have come from the incremental welfare asks that groups like Mercy For Animals and The Humane League focus on (disclaimer: I worked at the latter). The fact that these groups have been very careful to keep their asks within the Overton window has had the benefit of (1) helping advocates gain broad-based public support; and (2) getting corporations and policymakers on board and willing to actually adopt the changes they are asking for.
It seems likely to me that the second point applies for AI safety, but I’m not sure about the first and would probably need to see more polling or message testing to know. Nonetheless I suspect these concerns might be part of why the AI pause ask hasn’t been as widely adopted among EAs (although a number of them did sign the FLI letter).
I agree that the public has been pretty receptive to AI safety messaging. Much more than I would have expected a few years ago.
It sounds like you already have some takes on this question — in that case, it could be worth writing something up to make the case for why EAs should be advocating for a pause. I’d be happy to offer feedback if you do.
I’ve worked in advocacy for EA causes for a bit, so I definitely believe in the power of it, but I also think the Overton window is a pretty crucial consideration for folks who are trying to mobilize the public. I’m guessing this is a popular view among people who work in advocacy for EA causes, but I might be wrong.
To be fair, I do think there could be value in making bold asks outside the Overton window. James Ozden has a really good piece about this. I think groups like DxE and PETA have done this for the animal movement, and it seems totally plausible to me that this has had a net positive effect.
But on the other hand, I think lots of the tangible changes we’ve seen for farmed animals have come from the incremental welfare asks that groups like Mercy For Animals and The Humane League focus on (disclaimer: I worked at the latter). The fact that these groups have been very careful to keep their asks within the Overton window has had the benefit of (1) helping advocates gain broad-based public support; and (2) getting corporations and policymakers on board and willing to actually adopt the changes they are asking for.
It seems likely to me that the second point applies for AI safety, but I’m not sure about the first and would probably need to see more polling or message testing to know. Nonetheless I suspect these concerns might be part of why the AI pause ask hasn’t been as widely adopted among EAs (although a number of them did sign the FLI letter).
The public is very concerned about powerful AI and want something done about it.
If anyone is outside the overton window its EAs.
I agree that the public has been pretty receptive to AI safety messaging. Much more than I would have expected a few years ago.
It sounds like you already have some takes on this question — in that case, it could be worth writing something up to make the case for why EAs should be advocating for a pause. I’d be happy to offer feedback if you do.
Thats very generous of you, thanks Tyler!