I asked this of another commenter, but I will ask you too:
Do you feel it is accurate to say that many or most people working on this (including and especially Eliezer) at the time considered nuts and bolts alignment work to be the only worthwhile path? Given what info was available at the time.
And that widescale public persuasion / overton window / policy making was not likely to matter as the most scenarios were Foom based?
At the start the majority of people who were worried about AGI were worried about foom, but it’s been less clear that it’s a majority in the last few years.
It might have played a role, but I wouldn’t say that it has been the central factor.
I asked this of another commenter, but I will ask you too:
Do you feel it is accurate to say that many or most people working on this (including and especially Eliezer) at the time considered nuts and bolts alignment work to be the only worthwhile path? Given what info was available at the time.
And that widescale public persuasion / overton window / policy making was not likely to matter as the most scenarios were Foom based?
At the start the majority of people who were worried about AGI were worried about foom, but it’s been less clear that it’s a majority in the last few years.
It might have played a role, but I wouldn’t say that it has been the central factor.