I don’t follow—are you saying that (i) AI safety efforts so far have obviously not actually accomplished much risk-reduction, (ii) that this is largely for risk compensation reasons, and (iii) that this is worth emphasizing in order to prevent us from carrying on the same mistakes?
If so, I agree that if (i)-(ii) are true then (iii) seems right, but I’m not sure about (i) and (ii). But if you’re just saying that it would be good to know whether (i)-(ii) are true because if they are then it would be good to do (iii), I agree.
I am saying something like:
If actual risk is reduced by a quantity A, but the perceived reduction is actually B, then it’s worth spending time telling people the difference in cases where B>>A, else the effects of the project have been negative (like the effects of green-washing or more relevantly safety-washing). This is not about AI safety in general but for a particular intervention on a case by case basis.
I don’t follow—are you saying that (i) AI safety efforts so far have obviously not actually accomplished much risk-reduction, (ii) that this is largely for risk compensation reasons, and (iii) that this is worth emphasizing in order to prevent us from carrying on the same mistakes?
If so, I agree that if (i)-(ii) are true then (iii) seems right, but I’m not sure about (i) and (ii). But if you’re just saying that it would be good to know whether (i)-(ii) are true because if they are then it would be good to do (iii), I agree.
I am saying something like: If actual risk is reduced by a quantity A, but the perceived reduction is actually B, then it’s worth spending time telling people the difference in cases where B>>A, else the effects of the project have been negative (like the effects of green-washing or more relevantly safety-washing). This is not about AI safety in general but for a particular intervention on a case by case basis.
Ah I see, sorry. Agreed