“Demis Hassabis, reckless!” honestly feels to me like a pretty tame protest chant. I did a Google search for “protest” and this was the first result. Signs are things like “one year of genocide funded by UT” which seems both substantially more extreme and less epistemically valid than calling Demis “reckless.”
My sense from your other points is that you just don’t actually want pause AI to accomplish their goals, so it’s kind of over-determined for you, but if I wanted to tell a story about how a grassroots movement successfully got a international pause on AI, various people chanting that the current AI development process is reckless seems pretty fine to me?
Actually, I’m uncertain if pausing AI is a good idea and I wish the Pause AI people had a bit more uncertainty (on both their “p(doom)” and on whether pausing AI is a good policy) as well. I look at people who have 90%+ p(doom) as, at the very least, uncalibrated, the same way I look at the people who are dead certain that AI is going to go positively brilliant and that we should be racing ahead as fast as possible. It’s as if both of them aren’t doing any/enough reading of history. In the case of my tribe
I would submit that this kind of protesting, including/especially the example you posted makes your cause seem dumb/unnuanced/ridiculous to the onlookers who are indifferent/know little.
Last, I was just responding to the prompt “What are some criticisms of PauseAI?”. It’s not exactly the place for a “fair and balanced view” but also, I think it is far more important to critique your own side than the opposite side since you speak the same language as your own team so they will actually listen to you.
What is a reasonable p(doom|ASI) to have to not be concluding that pausing AI is a good idea? Or—what % chance of death are you personally willing to accept for a shot at immortality/utopia? Would it be the same if it was framed in terms of a game of Russian Roulette?
“Demis Hassabis, reckless!” honestly feels to me like a pretty tame protest chant. I did a Google search for “protest” and this was the first result. Signs are things like “one year of genocide funded by UT” which seems both substantially more extreme and less epistemically valid than calling Demis “reckless.”
My sense from your other points is that you just don’t actually want pause AI to accomplish their goals, so it’s kind of over-determined for you, but if I wanted to tell a story about how a grassroots movement successfully got a international pause on AI, various people chanting that the current AI development process is reckless seems pretty fine to me?
Actually, I’m uncertain if pausing AI is a good idea and I wish the Pause AI people had a bit more uncertainty (on both their “p(doom)” and on whether pausing AI is a good policy) as well. I look at people who have 90%+ p(doom) as, at the very least, uncalibrated, the same way I look at the people who are dead certain that AI is going to go positively brilliant and that we should be racing ahead as fast as possible. It’s as if both of them aren’t doing any/enough reading of history. In the case of my tribe
I would submit that this kind of protesting, including/especially the example you posted makes your cause seem dumb/unnuanced/ridiculous to the onlookers who are indifferent/know little.
Last, I was just responding to the prompt “What are some criticisms of PauseAI?”. It’s not exactly the place for a “fair and balanced view” but also, I think it is far more important to critique your own side than the opposite side since you speak the same language as your own team so they will actually listen to you.
What is a reasonable p(doom|ASI) to have to not be concluding that pausing AI is a good idea? Or—what % chance of death are you personally willing to accept for a shot at immortality/utopia? Would it be the same if it was framed in terms of a game of Russian Roulette?