Executive summary: The author outlines four key questions—who acts, what they do, who evaluates, and what happens if they don’t—to help turn broad moral sentiments into specific, actionable policy proposals, arguing that concreteness and institutional clarity are essential for effective policymaking across domains, including AI governance.
Key points:
Clarity of responsibility: Every policy must clearly specify who is obligated to act; vague terms like “the industry” invite confusion and weaken credibility, while specific thresholds (e.g., farms selling over 100,000 eggs) enable compromise and political traction.
Concrete action verbs: Policies need enforceable requirements with measurable actions (“publish,” “install”) and clear objects, rather than aspirational goals (“be safe” or “avoid suffering”).
Defined evaluators: A functioning policy requires an identifiable institution or body responsible for assessing compliance—an area the author notes is notably underdeveloped in AI safety governance.
Credible consequences: Compliance depends on real, enforceable consequences; policies only matter if noncompliance predictably results in penalties, loss of funding, or exclusion.
Interdependence of steps: Effective policy design links these questions—clear actors, actions, evaluators, and consequences—into a coherent system, ensuring proposals are practical rather than rhetorical.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author outlines four key questions—who acts, what they do, who evaluates, and what happens if they don’t—to help turn broad moral sentiments into specific, actionable policy proposals, arguing that concreteness and institutional clarity are essential for effective policymaking across domains, including AI governance.
Key points:
Clarity of responsibility: Every policy must clearly specify who is obligated to act; vague terms like “the industry” invite confusion and weaken credibility, while specific thresholds (e.g., farms selling over 100,000 eggs) enable compromise and political traction.
Concrete action verbs: Policies need enforceable requirements with measurable actions (“publish,” “install”) and clear objects, rather than aspirational goals (“be safe” or “avoid suffering”).
Defined evaluators: A functioning policy requires an identifiable institution or body responsible for assessing compliance—an area the author notes is notably underdeveloped in AI safety governance.
Credible consequences: Compliance depends on real, enforceable consequences; policies only matter if noncompliance predictably results in penalties, loss of funding, or exclusion.
Interdependence of steps: Effective policy design links these questions—clear actors, actions, evaluators, and consequences—into a coherent system, ensuring proposals are practical rather than rhetorical.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.