Do you mean that most people do indeed have plausible ways of shaping the outcome of the arrival of ASI? I’d be curious what paths are open to most people in this conception/framing.
I’ve always sort of thought people can only influence this if they have a few very specific circumstances (such as a specialized computer programmer skillset, or government policy experience, or specific positions in a handful of companies, or maybe enough clout to publish a book that gets a lot of press). Thus, only a tiny fraction of people are able to affect AI outcomes, and the rest of us are merely onlookers.
Do you mean that most people do indeed have plausible ways of shaping the outcome of the arrival of ASI? I’d be curious what paths are open to most people in this conception/framing.
I’ve always sort of thought people can only influence this if they have a few very specific circumstances (such as a specialized computer programmer skillset, or government policy experience, or specific positions in a handful of companies, or maybe enough clout to publish a book that gets a lot of press). Thus, only a tiny fraction of people are able to affect AI outcomes, and the rest of us are merely onlookers.
I think nearly every person could engage productively on AI issues by (in no particular order):
Donating to organizations you think do good work on these issues.
Contacting your representatives in government and letting them know how you feel about these issues and that it affects how you vote.
Commenting publicly (e.g., on Twitter) how you feel about these issues.
Participating in demonstrations (e.g., PauseAI) as you feel like they align with your interests and values.