Sorry, I have to add one more piece that really seems worth calling out.
Looks like I didn’t entirely succeed in explaining our plan.
>”My recommendation was very concretely “try to build an internal model of what really needs to happen for AI-risk to go well” and very much not “try to tell other people what really needs to happen for AI-risk”, which is almost the exact opposite.”
And that’s also what we meant. The goal isn’t to just give advice. The goal is to give useful and true advice, and this necessarily requires a model of what really needs to happen for AI risk.
If someone’s position is “very much don’t try to tell other people what really needs to happen for AI-risk”, you cannot claim that you meant the same thing when your position includes “the goal is to give useful and true advice”. You don’t also mean what Habryka means at all (you’re ignoring it) and it strikes me as disingenuous to claim that you mean the same thing thing as him at all.
More formally:
Person A: “X, definitely not Y”
Person B: “X and Y”
Person B is absolutely not saying the same thing as A.
Sorry, I have to add one more piece that really seems worth calling out.
If someone’s position is “very much don’t try to tell other people what really needs to happen for AI-risk”, you cannot claim that you meant the same thing when your position includes “the goal is to give useful and true advice”. You don’t also mean what Habryka means at all (you’re ignoring it) and it strikes me as disingenuous to claim that you mean the same thing thing as him at all.
More formally:
Person B is absolutely not saying the same thing as A.
Apologies, that was a knee-jerk reply. I take it back: we did disagree about something.
We’re going to take some time to let all of this criticism sink in.