My guess is this is mostly just a product of success, and insofar as the political system increasingly takes AI X-risk seriously, we should expect to see stuff like this from time to time. If the tables were flipped and Sunak was instead pooh-poohing AI X-risk and saying things like “the safest path forward for AI is accelerating progress as fast as we can – slowing down would be Luddism” then I wouldn’t be surprised to see articles saying “How Silicon Valley accelerationists are shaping Rishi Sunak’s AI plans”. Doesn’t mean we should ignore the negative pieces, and there very well may be things we can do to decrease it at the margin, but ultimately, I’d be surprised if there was a way around it. I also think it’s notable how much press there is that agrees with AI X-risk concerns; it’s not like there’s a consensus in the media that it should be dismissed.
+1; except that I would say we should expect to see more, and more high-profile.
AI xrisk is now moving from “weird idea that some academics and oddballs buy into” to “topic which is influencing and motivating significant policy interventions”, including on things that will meaningfully matter to people/groups/companies if put into action (e.g. licensing, potential restriction of open-sourcing, external oversight bodies, compute monitoring etc).
The former, for a lot of people (e.g. folks in AI/CS who didn’t ‘buy’ xrisk) was a minor annoyance. The latter is something that will concern them—either because they see the specific interventions as a risk to their work, or because they feel policy is being influenced in a major way by people who are misguided.
I would think it’s reasonable to anticipate more of this.
either because they see the specific interventions as a risk to their work, or because they feel policy is being influenced in a major way by people who are misguided
or because they feel it as a threat to their identity or self-image (I expect these to be even larger pain points than the two you identified)
Hmm, I agree that with influence comes increased scrutiny, and the trade-off is worth it in many cases, but I think there are various angles this scrutiny might come from, and I think this is a particularly bad one.
Why? Maybe I’m being overly sensitive but, to me, the piece has an underlying narrative of a covert group exercising undue influence over the government. If we had more of an outside game, I would expect the scrutiny to instead focus on either the substance of the issue or on the outside game actors. Either would probably be an improvement.
Furthermore, there’s still the very important issue of how appropriate it is for us to try to guide society without broader societal participation.
the piece has an underlying narrative of a covert group exercising undue influence over the government
My honest perspective is if you’re an lone individual affecting policy, detractors will call you a wannabe-tyrant, if you’re a small group, they’ll call you a conspiracy, and if you’re a large group, they’ll call you an uninformed mob. Regardless, your political opponents will attempt to paint your efforts as illegitimate, and while certain lines of criticism may be more effective than others, I wouldn’t expect scrutiny to simply focus on the substance either way.
I agree that we should have more of an outside game in addition to an inside game, but I’d also note that efforts at developing an outside game could similarly face harsh criticism (e.g., “appealing to the base instincts of random individuals, taking advantage of these individuals’ confusion on the topic, to make up for their own lack of support from actual experts”).
Maybe I’m in a bubble, but I don’t recall seeing many reputable publications label large-scale progressive movements (e.g., BLM, Extinction Rebellion, or #MeToo) as “uninformed mobs”. This article from the Daily Mail is about as close as it gets, but I think I’d rather have the Daily Mail writing about a wild What We Ourselves party than Politico insinuating a conspiracy.
Ultimately, I don’t think any of us know the optimal split in a social change portfolio between the outside game and the inside game, so perhaps we should adapt as the criticism comes in. If we get a few articles insinuating conspiracy, maybe we should reallocate towards the outside game, and vice versa.
And again, I know I sound like a broken record, but there’s also the issue of how appropriate it is for us to try to guide society without broader participation.
I don’t recall seeing many reputable publications label large-scale progressive movements (e.g., BLM, Extinction Rebellion, or #MeToo) as “uninformed mobs”
So progressive causes will generally be portrayed positively by progressive-leaning media, but conservative-leaning media, meanwhile, has definitely portrayed all those movements as ~mobs (especially for BLM and Extinction Rebellion), and predecessor movements, such as for Civli Rights, were likewise often portrayed as mobs by detractors. Now, maybe you don’t personally find conservative media to be “reputable,” but (at least in the US, perhaps less so in the UK) around half the power will generally be held by conservatives (and perhapsmore than half going forward).
For sure progressive publications will be more positive, and I don’t think conservative media ≠ reputable.
When I say “reputable publications” I am referring to the organisations at the top of this list of the most trusted news outlets in the US. My impression is that very few of these regularly characterise the aforementioned movements as “uninformed mobs”.
So I notice Fox ranks pretty low on that list, but if you click through to the link, they rank very high among Republicans (second to only the weather channel). Fox definitely uses rhetoric like that. After Fox (among Republicans) are Newsman and OAN, which similarly both use rhetoric like that. (And FWIW, I also wouldn’t be super surprised to see somewhat similar rhetoric from WSJ or Forbes, though probably said less bluntly.)
I’d also note that the left-leaning media uses somewhat similar rhetoric for conservative issues that are supported by large groups (e.g., Trumpism in general, climate denialism, etc), so it’s not just a one-directional phenomena.
Yes, I noticed that. Certain news organisations, which are trusted by an important subsection of the US population, often characterise progressive movements as uninformed mobs. That is clear. But if you define ‘reputable’ as ‘those organisations most trusted by the general public’, which seems like a reasonable definition, then, based on the YouGov analysis, Fox et al. is not reputable. But then maybe YouGov’s method is flawed? That’s plausible.
But we’ve fallen into a bit of a digression here. As I see it, there are four cruxes:
Does a focus on the inside game make us vulnerable to the criticism that we’re a part of a conspiracy?
For me, yes.
Does this have the potential to undermine our efforts?
For me, yes.
If we reallocate (to some degree) towards the outside game in an effort to hedge against this risk, are we likely to be labelled an uninformed mob, and thus undermine our efforts?
For me, no, not anytime soon (although, as you state, organisations such as Fox will do this before organisations such as PBS, and Fox is trusted by an important subsection of the US population).
Is it unquestionably OK to try to guide society without broader societal participation?
For me, no.
I think our biggest disagreement is with 3. I think it’s possible to undermine our efforts by acting in such a way that organisations such as Fox characterise us as an uninformed mob. However, I think we’re a long, long way from that happening. You seem to think we’re much closer, is that correct? Could you explain why?
I don’t know where you stand on 4.
P.S. I’m enjoying this discussion, thanks for taking the time!
My guess is this is mostly just a product of success, and insofar as the political system increasingly takes AI X-risk seriously, we should expect to see stuff like this from time to time. If the tables were flipped and Sunak was instead pooh-poohing AI X-risk and saying things like “the safest path forward for AI is accelerating progress as fast as we can – slowing down would be Luddism” then I wouldn’t be surprised to see articles saying “How Silicon Valley accelerationists are shaping Rishi Sunak’s AI plans”. Doesn’t mean we should ignore the negative pieces, and there very well may be things we can do to decrease it at the margin, but ultimately, I’d be surprised if there was a way around it. I also think it’s notable how much press there is that agrees with AI X-risk concerns; it’s not like there’s a consensus in the media that it should be dismissed.
+1; except that I would say we should expect to see more, and more high-profile.
AI xrisk is now moving from “weird idea that some academics and oddballs buy into” to “topic which is influencing and motivating significant policy interventions”, including on things that will meaningfully matter to people/groups/companies if put into action (e.g. licensing, potential restriction of open-sourcing, external oversight bodies, compute monitoring etc).
The former, for a lot of people (e.g. folks in AI/CS who didn’t ‘buy’ xrisk) was a minor annoyance. The latter is something that will concern them—either because they see the specific interventions as a risk to their work, or because they feel policy is being influenced in a major way by people who are misguided.
I would think it’s reasonable to anticipate more of this.
or because they feel it as a threat to their identity or self-image (I expect these to be even larger pain points than the two you identified)
Hmm, I agree that with influence comes increased scrutiny, and the trade-off is worth it in many cases, but I think there are various angles this scrutiny might come from, and I think this is a particularly bad one.
Why? Maybe I’m being overly sensitive but, to me, the piece has an underlying narrative of a covert group exercising undue influence over the government. If we had more of an outside game, I would expect the scrutiny to instead focus on either the substance of the issue or on the outside game actors. Either would probably be an improvement.
Furthermore, there’s still the very important issue of how appropriate it is for us to try to guide society without broader societal participation.
My honest perspective is if you’re an lone individual affecting policy, detractors will call you a wannabe-tyrant, if you’re a small group, they’ll call you a conspiracy, and if you’re a large group, they’ll call you an uninformed mob. Regardless, your political opponents will attempt to paint your efforts as illegitimate, and while certain lines of criticism may be more effective than others, I wouldn’t expect scrutiny to simply focus on the substance either way.
I agree that we should have more of an outside game in addition to an inside game, but I’d also note that efforts at developing an outside game could similarly face harsh criticism (e.g., “appealing to the base instincts of random individuals, taking advantage of these individuals’ confusion on the topic, to make up for their own lack of support from actual experts”).
Maybe I’m in a bubble, but I don’t recall seeing many reputable publications label large-scale progressive movements (e.g., BLM, Extinction Rebellion, or #MeToo) as “uninformed mobs”. This article from the Daily Mail is about as close as it gets, but I think I’d rather have the Daily Mail writing about a wild What We Ourselves party than Politico insinuating a conspiracy.
Ultimately, I don’t think any of us know the optimal split in a social change portfolio between the outside game and the inside game, so perhaps we should adapt as the criticism comes in. If we get a few articles insinuating conspiracy, maybe we should reallocate towards the outside game, and vice versa.
And again, I know I sound like a broken record, but there’s also the issue of how appropriate it is for us to try to guide society without broader participation.
So progressive causes will generally be portrayed positively by progressive-leaning media, but conservative-leaning media, meanwhile, has definitely portrayed all those movements as ~mobs (especially for BLM and Extinction Rebellion), and predecessor movements, such as for Civli Rights, were likewise often portrayed as mobs by detractors. Now, maybe you don’t personally find conservative media to be “reputable,” but (at least in the US, perhaps less so in the UK) around half the power will generally be held by conservatives (and perhaps more than half going forward).
Yeah, the phrase “woke mob” (and similar) is extremely common in conservative media!
I suspect the ideology of Politico and most EAs are not that different (i.e. technocratic liberal centrism).
For sure progressive publications will be more positive, and I don’t think conservative media ≠ reputable.
When I say “reputable publications” I am referring to the organisations at the top of this list of the most trusted news outlets in the US. My impression is that very few of these regularly characterise the aforementioned movements as “uninformed mobs”.
So I notice Fox ranks pretty low on that list, but if you click through to the link, they rank very high among Republicans (second to only the weather channel). Fox definitely uses rhetoric like that. After Fox (among Republicans) are Newsman and OAN, which similarly both use rhetoric like that. (And FWIW, I also wouldn’t be super surprised to see somewhat similar rhetoric from WSJ or Forbes, though probably said less bluntly.)
I’d also note that the left-leaning media uses somewhat similar rhetoric for conservative issues that are supported by large groups (e.g., Trumpism in general, climate denialism, etc), so it’s not just a one-directional phenomena.
Yes, I noticed that. Certain news organisations, which are trusted by an important subsection of the US population, often characterise progressive movements as uninformed mobs. That is clear. But if you define ‘reputable’ as ‘those organisations most trusted by the general public’, which seems like a reasonable definition, then, based on the YouGov analysis, Fox et al. is not reputable. But then maybe YouGov’s method is flawed? That’s plausible.
But we’ve fallen into a bit of a digression here. As I see it, there are four cruxes:
Does a focus on the inside game make us vulnerable to the criticism that we’re a part of a conspiracy?
For me, yes.
Does this have the potential to undermine our efforts?
For me, yes.
If we reallocate (to some degree) towards the outside game in an effort to hedge against this risk, are we likely to be labelled an uninformed mob, and thus undermine our efforts?
For me, no, not anytime soon (although, as you state, organisations such as Fox will do this before organisations such as PBS, and Fox is trusted by an important subsection of the US population).
Is it unquestionably OK to try to guide society without broader societal participation?
For me, no.
I think our biggest disagreement is with 3. I think it’s possible to undermine our efforts by acting in such a way that organisations such as Fox characterise us as an uninformed mob. However, I think we’re a long, long way from that happening. You seem to think we’re much closer, is that correct? Could you explain why?
I don’t know where you stand on 4.
P.S. I’m enjoying this discussion, thanks for taking the time!