I don’t see a difference between 1, 2, 3 in practice as a judgment that could be reasonably made; my general sense of that post is that it falls two-thirds of the way to 3 from 4? All it’s missing is an explicit acknowledgment that it’s just a run at death with dignity. The political parts aren’t written in a way that strikes me as naive and there’s no attempt to blur the border between the technical problem and the political problem.
The way you phrase the last paragraph of your comment seemed to imply that there’s nobody alive working on “AI governance” that attacks the problem at >= level 3. Do you not see Thane or people with his worldview/action plan as being “AI governance” people?
Suppose someone tries to do one of these to push us more towards adequacy on this list, according to this rationale. Do you see that as either:
Straightforwardly working on the problem
A respectable attempt to “die with dignity”
A respectable attempt to “die with dignity” depending on more concrete details about the mental model of the person in question
Completely missing the point in a neutral way
Actively counterproductive
I don’t see a difference between 1, 2, 3 in practice as a judgment that could be reasonably made; my general sense of that post is that it falls two-thirds of the way to 3 from 4? All it’s missing is an explicit acknowledgment that it’s just a run at death with dignity. The political parts aren’t written in a way that strikes me as naive and there’s no attempt to blur the border between the technical problem and the political problem.
The way you phrase the last paragraph of your comment seemed to imply that there’s nobody alive working on “AI governance” that attacks the problem at >= level 3. Do you not see Thane or people with his worldview/action plan as being “AI governance” people?