Maybe something like “mundane-ist” would be better. The “realists” are people who think that AI is fundamentally “mundane” and that the safety concerns with AI are basically the same as safety concerns with any new technology (increases inequality by making the powerful more powerful, etc.) But of course “mundane-ist” isn’t a real word, which is a bit of a problem.
Thanks. To be honest, I am still wrestling with the right term to use for this group. I came up with “realist” and “pragmatist” as the “least bad” options after searching for a term that meets the following criteria:
short, ideally one word
conveys the idea of prioritizing (a) current or near-term harms over (b) far-term consequences
minimizes the risk that someone would be offended if the label were applied to them
I also tried playing around with an acronym like SAFEr for “Skeptical, Accountable, Fair, Ethical” but couldn’t figure out an acronym that I liked.
Would very much appreciate feedback or suggestions on a better term. FWIW, I am trying to steelman the position but not pre-judge the overall debate.
Thanks. I think this is useful and I’m trying to think through who is in the upper left hand corner. Are there “AI researchers” or, more broadly, people who are part of the public conversation who believe (1) AI isn’t moving all that fast towards AGI and (2) that it’s not that risky?
I guess my initial reaction is that people in the upper left hand corner just generally think “AI is kind of not that big a deal” and that there are other societal problems to worry about. does that sound right? Any thoughts on who should be placed in the upper left?
Yeah, I think so. But since those people generally find AI less important (there’s both less of an upside and less of a downside) they generally participate less in the debate. Hence there’s a bit of a selection effect hiding those people.
Looking at the 2x2 I posted I wonder if you could call the lower left corner something relating to “non-existential risks”. That seems to capture their views. It might be hard to come up with a catch term, though.
The upper left corner could maybe be called “sceptics”.
Realist and pragmatist don’t seem like the best choices of terms, since they pre-judge the issue a bit in the direction of that view.
Maybe something like “mundane-ist” would be better. The “realists” are people who think that AI is fundamentally “mundane” and that the safety concerns with AI are basically the same as safety concerns with any new technology (increases inequality by making the powerful more powerful, etc.) But of course “mundane-ist” isn’t a real word, which is a bit of a problem.
Thanks. To be honest, I am still wrestling with the right term to use for this group. I came up with “realist” and “pragmatist” as the “least bad” options after searching for a term that meets the following criteria:
short, ideally one word
conveys the idea of prioritizing (a) current or near-term harms over (b) far-term consequences
minimizes the risk that someone would be offended if the label were applied to them
I also tried playing around with an acronym like SAFEr for “Skeptical, Accountable, Fair, Ethical” but couldn’t figure out an acronym that I liked.
Would very much appreciate feedback or suggestions on a better term. FWIW, I am trying to steelman the position but not pre-judge the overall debate.
Not exactly what you’re asking for, but maybe a 2x2 could be food for thought.
Thanks. I think this is useful and I’m trying to think through who is in the upper left hand corner. Are there “AI researchers” or, more broadly, people who are part of the public conversation who believe (1) AI isn’t moving all that fast towards AGI and (2) that it’s not that risky?
I guess my initial reaction is that people in the upper left hand corner just generally think “AI is kind of not that big a deal” and that there are other societal problems to worry about. does that sound right? Any thoughts on who should be placed in the upper left?
Yeah, I think so. But since those people generally find AI less important (there’s both less of an upside and less of a downside) they generally participate less in the debate. Hence there’s a bit of a selection effect hiding those people.
There are some people who arguably are in that corner who do participate in the debate, though—e.g. Robin Hanson. (He thinks some sort of AI will eventually be enormously important, but that the near-term effects, while significant, will not be at the level people on the right side think).
Looking at the 2x2 I posted I wonder if you could call the lower left corner something relating to “non-existential risks”. That seems to capture their views. It might be hard to come up with a catch term, though.
The upper left corner could maybe be called “sceptics”.