From an overarching viewpoint, I am personally extremely motivated to avoid accidentally doing more harm than good. I have seen how very easy it is to do that in the relatively forgiving fields of poverty and animal welfare and the stakes are much higher and the field much smaller in AI safety. I literally (not figuratively or hyperbolically) lose sleep over this concern. So when I say we take it seriously, it’s not corporate speak for appeasing the masses, but a deeply, genuinely held concern. I say this to point towards the fact that whatever our current methods are for avoiding causing harm, we are motivated to find and become aware of other ways to increase our robustness.
More specifically, another approach we’re using is being extremely cautious in launching things, even if we are not convinced by an advisor’s object level arguments. Last year I was considering launching a project but before I went for it, I asked a bunch of experts in the area. Lots of people liked the idea but some were worried about it for various reasons. I wasn’t convinced by their reasoning, but I am convinced by epistemic modesty arguments and they had more experience in the area, so I nixxed the project. We intend to have a similar mindset moving forwards, while still keeping in mind that no project will ever be universally considered good.
I wasn’t convinced by their reasoning, but I am convinced by epistemic modesty arguments and they had more experience in the area, so I nixxed the project.
I agree that the epistemic modesty/humility idea of “defer at least somewhat to other people, and more so the more relevant experience/expertise they have” makes sense in general.
I also think that the unilateralist’s curse provides additional reason to take that sort of approach in situations (like this one) where “some number of altruistically minded actors each have the ability to take an action that would cause accidental harm to others” (quoting from that link). So it’s good to hear you’re doing that :)
Thanks for the links and thoughtful question!
From an overarching viewpoint, I am personally extremely motivated to avoid accidentally doing more harm than good. I have seen how very easy it is to do that in the relatively forgiving fields of poverty and animal welfare and the stakes are much higher and the field much smaller in AI safety. I literally (not figuratively or hyperbolically) lose sleep over this concern. So when I say we take it seriously, it’s not corporate speak for appeasing the masses, but a deeply, genuinely held concern. I say this to point towards the fact that whatever our current methods are for avoiding causing harm, we are motivated to find and become aware of other ways to increase our robustness.
More specifically, another approach we’re using is being extremely cautious in launching things, even if we are not convinced by an advisor’s object level arguments. Last year I was considering launching a project but before I went for it, I asked a bunch of experts in the area. Lots of people liked the idea but some were worried about it for various reasons. I wasn’t convinced by their reasoning, but I am convinced by epistemic modesty arguments and they had more experience in the area, so I nixxed the project. We intend to have a similar mindset moving forwards, while still keeping in mind that no project will ever be universally considered good.
That sounds good to me.
I agree that the epistemic modesty/humility idea of “defer at least somewhat to other people, and more so the more relevant experience/expertise they have” makes sense in general.
I also think that the unilateralist’s curse provides additional reason to take that sort of approach in situations (like this one) where “some number of altruistically minded actors each have the ability to take an action that would cause accidental harm to others” (quoting from that link). So it’s good to hear you’re doing that :)