when labs are in the process of training AGI or near-AGI systems, they will be able to see alignment opportunities that we can’t from a more theoretical or distanced POV.
Many of our most serious safety concerns might only arise with near-human-level systems, and it’s difficult or intractable to make progress on these problems without access to such AIs.
Or, y’know, you could just not build them and avoid the serious safety concerns that way?
If future large models turn out to be very dangerous, it’s essential we develop compelling evidence this is the case.
Wow. It’s like they are just agreeing with the people who say we need empirical evidence for x-risk, and are fine with offering it (with no democratic mandate to do so!)
This just seems like a hell of a reckless gamble to me. And you have to factor in their massive profit-making motivation. Is this really much more than mere safetywashing?
Or, y’know, you could just not build them and avoid the serious safety concerns that way?
Wow. It’s like they are just agreeing with the people who say we need empirical evidence for x-risk, and are fine with offering it (with no democratic mandate to do so!)
Thanks for your last paragraph. Very much agree.