Your environmentalism examples raise another issue. What good is it convincing people of the importance of friendly AI if they respond with similarly ineffective actions? If widespread acceptance of the importance of the environment has led primarily to ineffective behaviours like unplugging phone chargers, washing and sorting containers for recycling and other activities of dubious benefit while at the same time achieving little with regards to reductions in CO2 emissions or slowing the destruction of rainforests then why should we expect widespread acceptance of the importance of friendly AI to actually aid in the development of friendly AI?
Other than donating to the singularity institute it is not even obvious to me what the average person could do to ‘further the cause’ if they were to accept its importance. There seems a fairly high chance that you would instead get useless or counter productive responses given widespread popular acceptance.
widespread acceptance of the importance of the environment has led primarily to ineffective behaviours like unplugging phone chargers, washing and sorting containers for recycling and other activities of dubious benefit while at the same time achieving little with regards to reductions in CO2 emissions or slowing the destruction of rainforests then why should we expect widespread acceptance of the importance of friendly AI to actually aid in the development of friendly AI?
I should stress that there have been some important bits of progress that came about as a result of changing public opinion, for example the Stern review. The UK government is finally getting its act together with regards to a major hydroelectric project on the Severn estuary, and we have decided to build new nuclear plants. There is a massive push for developing good energy technologies, such as the fields of synthetic biology, nuclear fusion research and large scale solar. Not to mention advances in wind technology, etc, etc.
The process seems to go
Public opinion --> serious research and public policy planning --> solutions
Your environmentalism examples raise another issue. What good is it convincing people of the importance of friendly AI if they respond with similarly ineffective actions? If widespread acceptance of the importance of the environment has led primarily to ineffective behaviours like unplugging phone chargers, washing and sorting containers for recycling and other activities of dubious benefit while at the same time achieving little with regards to reductions in CO2 emissions or slowing the destruction of rainforests then why should we expect widespread acceptance of the importance of friendly AI to actually aid in the development of friendly AI?
Other than donating to the singularity institute it is not even obvious to me what the average person could do to ‘further the cause’ if they were to accept its importance. There seems a fairly high chance that you would instead get useless or counter productive responses given widespread popular acceptance.
I should stress that there have been some important bits of progress that came about as a result of changing public opinion, for example the Stern review. The UK government is finally getting its act together with regards to a major hydroelectric project on the Severn estuary, and we have decided to build new nuclear plants. There is a massive push for developing good energy technologies, such as the fields of synthetic biology, nuclear fusion research and large scale solar. Not to mention advances in wind technology, etc, etc.
The process seems to go
Public opinion --> serious research and public policy planning --> solutions