I don’t think any of the big AI labs have overcome that prior, but I also have the prior that their safety plans don’t even make sense theoretically—hence the “burden of proof” is on them to show that it is possible to align the kind of AI they are building. Another thing pointing in the opposite direction.
TL;DR: I don’t like talking about “burden of proof”
I prefer talking about “priors”.
Seems like you ( @Greg_Colbourn ) have priors that AI labs will cause damage, and I’d assume @Benjamin Hilton would agree with that?
I also guess you both have priors that ~random (average) capabilities research will be net negative?
If so, I suggest we should ask if the AI lab (or the specific capabilities research) has overcome that prior somehow.
wdyt?
I don’t think any of the big AI labs have overcome that prior, but I also have the prior that their safety plans don’t even make sense theoretically—hence the “burden of proof” is on them to show that it is possible to align the kind of AI they are building. Another thing pointing in the opposite direction.
Whoever downvoted this, I’d really prefer if you tell me why
You can do it anonymously:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSca6NOTbFMU9BBQBYHecUfjPsxhGbzzlFO5BNNR1AIXZjpvcw/viewform