But, I’ve heard some people be concerned “aren’t basically all SSP-like plans basically fake? is this going to cement some random bureaucratic bullshit rather than actual good plans?.” And yeah, that does seem plausible.
I do think that all SSP-like plans are basically fake, and I’m opposed to them becoming the bedrock of AI regulation. But I worry that people take the premise “the government will inevitably botch this” and conclude something like “so it’s best to let the labs figure out what to do before cementing anything.” This seems alarming to me. Afaict, the current world we’re in is basically the worst case scenario—labs are racing to build AGI, and their safety approach is ~“don’t worry, we’ll figure it out as we go.” But this process doesn’t seem very likely to result in good safety plans either; charging ahead as is doesn’t necessarily beget better policies. So while I certainly agree that SSP-shaped things are woefully inadequate, it seems important, when discussing this, to keep in mind what the counterfactual is. Because the status quo is not, imo, a remotely acceptable alternative either.
Afaict, the current world we’re in is basically the worst case scenario
the status quo is not, imo, a remotely acceptable alternative either
Both of these quotes display types of thinking which are typically dangerous and counterproductive, because they rule out the possibility that your actions can make things worse.
The current world is very far from the worst-case scenario (even if you have very high P(doom), it’s far away in log-odds) and I don’t think it would be that hard to accidentally make things considerably worse.
I think on alternative here that isn’t just “trust AI companies” is “wait until we have a good Danger Eval, and then get another bit of legislation that specifically focuses on that, rather than hoping that the bureaucratic/political process shakes out with a good set of SSP industry standards.”
I don’t know that that’s the right call, but I don’t think it’s a crazy position from a safety perspective.
Largely agree with everything here.
I do think that all SSP-like plans are basically fake, and I’m opposed to them becoming the bedrock of AI regulation. But I worry that people take the premise “the government will inevitably botch this” and conclude something like “so it’s best to let the labs figure out what to do before cementing anything.” This seems alarming to me. Afaict, the current world we’re in is basically the worst case scenario—labs are racing to build AGI, and their safety approach is ~“don’t worry, we’ll figure it out as we go.” But this process doesn’t seem very likely to result in good safety plans either; charging ahead as is doesn’t necessarily beget better policies. So while I certainly agree that SSP-shaped things are woefully inadequate, it seems important, when discussing this, to keep in mind what the counterfactual is. Because the status quo is not, imo, a remotely acceptable alternative either.
Both of these quotes display types of thinking which are typically dangerous and counterproductive, because they rule out the possibility that your actions can make things worse.
The current world is very far from the worst-case scenario (even if you have very high P(doom), it’s far away in log-odds) and I don’t think it would be that hard to accidentally make things considerably worse.
I think on alternative here that isn’t just “trust AI companies” is “wait until we have a good Danger Eval, and then get another bit of legislation that specifically focuses on that, rather than hoping that the bureaucratic/political process shakes out with a good set of SSP industry standards.”
I don’t know that that’s the right call, but I don’t think it’s a crazy position from a safety perspective.