And I don’t think it is clear, at this point, that we are justified to assume more than that there might be risks from AI. Claiming that there are actions that we can take, with respect to risks from AI, that are superior to others, is like claiming that the coin is biased while being unable to determine the direction of the bias. By claiming that doing something is better than doing nothing we might as well end up making things worse. Just like by unconditionally assigning a higher probability to one side of a coin, of which we know nothing but that it is biased, in a coin tossing tournament.
This is a problem—though it probably shouldn’t stop us from trying.
The only sensible option seems to be to wait for more information.
Players can try to improve their positions and attempt to gain knowledge and power. That itself might cause problems—but it seems likely to beat thumb twiddling.
This is a problem—though it probably shouldn’t stop us from trying.
Players can try to improve their positions and attempt to gain knowledge and power. That itself might cause problems—but it seems likely to beat thumb twiddling.