I see more negative reactions to AI safety. I don’t believe either of us has strong enough evidence to make a solid claim that one attracts substantially more negative PR than the other.
No one is actually opposed to the basic idea of researching AI safety. Some people just think it’s silly. But people actually think that intervening in nature is actually ethically wrong. The issue also links to debates over meat consumption, where people are already wired to be irrational. For these reasons you see people call out the idea in stronger terms than they talk about AI.
People react more erratically and strongly to AI safety if they are already involved in computer science and AI. But that’s not a representative reference class.
I see more negative reactions to AI safety. I don’t believe either of us has strong enough evidence to make a solid claim that one attracts substantially more negative PR than the other.
No one is actually opposed to the basic idea of researching AI safety. Some people just think it’s silly. But people actually think that intervening in nature is actually ethically wrong. The issue also links to debates over meat consumption, where people are already wired to be irrational. For these reasons you see people call out the idea in stronger terms than they talk about AI.
People react more erratically and strongly to AI safety if they are already involved in computer science and AI. But that’s not a representative reference class.