When I read the letter I thought the mention of an airstrike on a data centre was unhelpful. He could have just said “make it illegal” and left the enforcement mechanisms to imagination.
But, on reflection, maybe he was right to do that. Politicians are selected for effective political communication, and they very frequently talk quite explicitly about long prison sentences for people who violate whatever law they are pushing. Maybe the promise of righteous punishment dealing makes people more enthusiastic for new rules. (“Yes, you wouldn’t be able to do X, but you could participate in the punishment of the bad people who do do it!”). Maybe this is too cynical. In any case, a bunch of people on twitter getting overexcited about a mis-interpretation of what he is saying is probably much better than them ignoring him and talking about something else.
Yes, that sentence stood out and dominated the text and debate in problematic ways.
But if he had left it out—wouldn’t the debate have been stuck at “why pass such a law, seeing as you can’t realistically enforce it?”, because someone else would have had to dare to propose airstrikes, and would not have?
Eliezer isn’t stupid. Like, wrong about many things, but he is a very intelligent man. He must have known this letter was akin to getting blacklisted everywhere, and being eternally remembered as the dude who wanted airstrikes against AIs, who will be eternally asked about this. That it will have closed many doors for professional networking and funding. He clearly decided it was worth the extremely small chance of success. Because he gave up on academia and CEOs and tried to reach the public, by spelling it all out.
When I read the letter I thought the mention of an airstrike on a data centre was unhelpful. He could have just said “make it illegal” and left the enforcement mechanisms to imagination.
But, on reflection, maybe he was right to do that. Politicians are selected for effective political communication, and they very frequently talk quite explicitly about long prison sentences for people who violate whatever law they are pushing. Maybe the promise of righteous punishment dealing makes people more enthusiastic for new rules. (“Yes, you wouldn’t be able to do X, but you could participate in the punishment of the bad people who do do it!”). Maybe this is too cynical. In any case, a bunch of people on twitter getting overexcited about a mis-interpretation of what he is saying is probably much better than them ignoring him and talking about something else.
Unsure.
Yes, that sentence stood out and dominated the text and debate in problematic ways.
But if he had left it out—wouldn’t the debate have been stuck at “why pass such a law, seeing as you can’t realistically enforce it?”, because someone else would have had to dare to propose airstrikes, and would not have?
Eliezer isn’t stupid. Like, wrong about many things, but he is a very intelligent man. He must have known this letter was akin to getting blacklisted everywhere, and being eternally remembered as the dude who wanted airstrikes against AIs, who will be eternally asked about this. That it will have closed many doors for professional networking and funding. He clearly decided it was worth the extremely small chance of success. Because he gave up on academia and CEOs and tried to reach the public, by spelling it all out.