This is an interesting datapoint, though… just to be clear, I would not consider the Manhattan project a success on the dimension of wisdom or even positive impact.
They did sure build some powerful technology, and they also sure didn’t seem to think much about whether it was good to build that powerful technology (with many of them regretting it later).
I feel like the argument of “the only other community that was working on technology of world-ending proportions, which to be clear, did end up mostly just running full steam ahead at building the world-destroyer, was also very young” is not an amazing argument against criticism of EA/AI-Safety.
It is a data point against a different kind of criticism, that sounds more like “EA is a bunch of 20-something dilettantes running around having urgent conversations instead of doing anything in the world”. I hear that flavor of criticism more than “EA might build the world destroyer”, and I suspect it is more common in the world.
I haven’t seen many people accuse EAs of not doing anything (which is kind of a soft vote of confidence.) I thought the criticisms were more along the lines of arrogance/directing money wrong places/Influencing beind closed doors (AI)/ not focusing on systematic change. More that the things we do are bad/useless but less that we are only talking?
Pretty uncertain though
I suppose I’m on the GHD bent though. Do you have any any articles to share along these lines?
This is an interesting datapoint, though… just to be clear, I would not consider the Manhattan project a success on the dimension of wisdom or even positive impact.
They did sure build some powerful technology, and they also sure didn’t seem to think much about whether it was good to build that powerful technology (with many of them regretting it later).
I feel like the argument of “the only other community that was working on technology of world-ending proportions, which to be clear, did end up mostly just running full steam ahead at building the world-destroyer, was also very young” is not an amazing argument against criticism of EA/AI-Safety.
It is a data point against a different kind of criticism, that sounds more like “EA is a bunch of 20-something dilettantes running around having urgent conversations instead of doing anything in the world”. I hear that flavor of criticism more than “EA might build the world destroyer”, and I suspect it is more common in the world.
I haven’t seen many people accuse EAs of not doing anything (which is kind of a soft vote of confidence.) I thought the criticisms were more along the lines of arrogance/directing money wrong places/Influencing beind closed doors (AI)/ not focusing on systematic change. More that the things we do are bad/useless but less that we are only talking?
Pretty uncertain though
I suppose I’m on the GHD bent though. Do you have any any articles to share along these lines?
I was thinking about the “no systemic change” thing mainly, and no articles I can think of, just a general vibe
yeah I totally agree