A lot of it, I would guess, comes down to lack of exposure to the reasonable version of the argument.
A key bottleneck would therefore be media, as it was for climate change.
Trying to upload “media brain”, here are reasons why you might not want to run a story on this topic (apologies if it seems dismissive, that is not the intent, I broadly sympathize with the thesis that AGI is at least a potential major cause area, however it may be helpful to channel where the dismissiveness comes from on a deeper level)...
-The thesis is associated with science-fiction. Taking science-fiction seriously as an adult is associated with escapism and a refusal to accept reality.
- It is seen as something only computer science “nerds”, if you’ll pardon the term, worry about. This makes it easy to dismiss the underlying concept as reflecting a blinkered vision of the world. The idea is that if only those people went outside and “touched grass”, they would develop a different worldview—that the worldview is a product of being stuck inside a room looking at a computer screen all day.
- There is something inherently suspicious about CS people looking at the problem of human suffering and concluding that more than helping people in tangible ways in the physical world, the single most important thing other people should be doing is to be more like them and to do more of the things that they are already doing. Of course the paper clip optimizer is going to say that increasing the supply of paper clips is the most pressing problem in the universe. In fact it’s one reason why media people love to run stories about the media itself!
- In any case there appears to be no theory of change—“if only we did this, that would take care of that”. At least with climate change there was the basic idea of reducing carbon emissions. What is the reducing carbon emissions of AI X-risk? If there is nothing we can do that would make a difference, might as well forget about it.
What might help overcome these issues?
To start with you’d need some kind of translator, an idea launderer. Someone
well-known
credible (so not a Hollywood actor)
who isn’t coded as a “nerd” (someone for whom your prior guess would be low that they would care about this topic)
who isn’t too polarizing (no eccentric billionaire or polarizing politician).
Basically, a human equivalent of the BBC. Then have them produce documentaries on the topic—some might take off.
Thanks for this comment, it’s exactly the type of thing I was looking for. The person who comes to mind for me would be Louis Theroux...although he mainly makes documentaries more on people than on ‘things’ nonetheless some of his documentaries grapple with issues around ethics or morality. Think it might be a bit of stretch to imagine this actually happening though, but he does meet the criteria I would say.
A lot of it, I would guess, comes down to lack of exposure to the reasonable version of the argument.
A key bottleneck would therefore be media, as it was for climate change.
Trying to upload “media brain”, here are reasons why you might not want to run a story on this topic (apologies if it seems dismissive, that is not the intent, I broadly sympathize with the thesis that AGI is at least a potential major cause area, however it may be helpful to channel where the dismissiveness comes from on a deeper level)...
-The thesis is associated with science-fiction. Taking science-fiction seriously as an adult is associated with escapism and a refusal to accept reality.
- It is seen as something only computer science “nerds”, if you’ll pardon the term, worry about. This makes it easy to dismiss the underlying concept as reflecting a blinkered vision of the world. The idea is that if only those people went outside and “touched grass”, they would develop a different worldview—that the worldview is a product of being stuck inside a room looking at a computer screen all day.
- There is something inherently suspicious about CS people looking at the problem of human suffering and concluding that more than helping people in tangible ways in the physical world, the single most important thing other people should be doing is to be more like them and to do more of the things that they are already doing. Of course the paper clip optimizer is going to say that increasing the supply of paper clips is the most pressing problem in the universe. In fact it’s one reason why media people love to run stories about the media itself!
- In any case there appears to be no theory of change—“if only we did this, that would take care of that”. At least with climate change there was the basic idea of reducing carbon emissions. What is the reducing carbon emissions of AI X-risk? If there is nothing we can do that would make a difference, might as well forget about it.
What might help overcome these issues?
To start with you’d need some kind of translator, an idea launderer. Someone
well-known
credible (so not a Hollywood actor)
who isn’t coded as a “nerd” (someone for whom your prior guess would be low that they would care about this topic)
who isn’t too polarizing (no eccentric billionaire or polarizing politician).
Basically, a human equivalent of the BBC. Then have them produce documentaries on the topic—some might take off.
Thanks for this comment, it’s exactly the type of thing I was looking for. The person who comes to mind for me would be Louis Theroux...although he mainly makes documentaries more on people than on ‘things’ nonetheless some of his documentaries grapple with issues around ethics or morality. Think it might be a bit of stretch to imagine this actually happening though, but he does meet the criteria I would say.