Widespread public mobilisation certainly helps to get more policymakers on board with regulation, but the mobilisation has to be caused by a scientific consensus and be pointing at the scientific consensus
If you believe that policymakers regularly sort the “loudest voices” from real scientists
I was talking about the loudest of the activist voices: I’m worried policymakers might hear the public is concerned about hugely beneficial technology instead the public being concerned about the technical reasons for doom and pointing at the scientists to listen to who can explain these reasons
a de-facto moratorium on new approvals
For the context, I want lots of narrow AI to be allowed; I also want things with potential to kill everyone to be prevented from being created, with no chance of someone getting through, anywhere in the planet.
I appreciate the reply!
Widespread public mobilisation certainly helps to get more policymakers on board with regulation, but the mobilisation has to be caused by a scientific consensus and be pointing at the scientific consensus
I was talking about the loudest of the activist voices: I’m worried policymakers might hear the public is concerned about hugely beneficial technology instead the public being concerned about the technical reasons for doom and pointing at the scientists to listen to who can explain these reasons
For the context, I want lots of narrow AI to be allowed; I also want things with potential to kill everyone to be prevented from being created, with no chance of someone getting through, anywhere in the planet.
$957m in the US alone in 2023 on tech (less on AI): https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/02/ai-lobbying-spikes-nearly-200percent-as-calls-for-regulation-surge.html