What I don’t understand is, either in my model or Critch’s, where we find more hope by declining a pivotal act, once one becomes feasible?
Part of the reason for more hope is that people are more trustworthy if they commit to avoiding the worst forms of unilateralist curses and world conquest. So by having committed to avoiding the pivotal act, leading actors became more likely to cooperate in ways that avoided the need for a pivotal act.
If a single pivotal act becomes possible, then it seems likely that it will also be possible to find friendlier pivotal processes that include persuading most governments to take appropriate actions. An AI that can melt nearly all GPUs will be powerful enough to scare governments into doing lots of things that are currently way outside the Overton window.
Part of the reason for more hope is that people are more trustworthy if they commit to avoiding the worst forms of unilateralist curses and world conquest. So by having committed to avoiding the pivotal act, leading actors became more likely to cooperate in ways that avoided the need for a pivotal act.
If a single pivotal act becomes possible, then it seems likely that it will also be possible to find friendlier pivotal processes that include persuading most governments to take appropriate actions. An AI that can melt nearly all GPUs will be powerful enough to scare governments into doing lots of things that are currently way outside the Overton window.