These are all very reasonable positions, and one would struggle to find fault with them.
Personally, I’m glad there are smart folks out there thinking about what sorts of risks we might face in the near future. Biologists have been talking about the next big pandemic for years. It makes sense to think these issues through.
Where I vehemently object is on the policy side. To use the pandemic analogy, it’s the difference between a research-led investigation into future pandemics and a call to ban the use of CRISPR. It’s impractical and, from a policy perspective, questionable.
The conversation around AI within EA is framed as “we need to stop AI progress before we all die.” It seems tough to justify such an extreme policy position.
These are all very reasonable positions, and one would struggle to find fault with them.
Personally, I’m glad there are smart folks out there thinking about what sorts of risks we might face in the near future. Biologists have been talking about the next big pandemic for years. It makes sense to think these issues through.
Where I vehemently object is on the policy side. To use the pandemic analogy, it’s the difference between a research-led investigation into future pandemics and a call to ban the use of CRISPR. It’s impractical and, from a policy perspective, questionable.
The conversation around AI within EA is framed as “we need to stop AI progress before we all die.” It seems tough to justify such an extreme policy position.