“If it would fail under this specific load, then it is unsafe” is a clear idea of what would constitute unsafe. I don’t think we have this clear of an idea for AI.
Agreed. And so until we do, we can’t claim they are safe.
But maybe when you say “clear idea”, you don’t necessarily mean a clean logical description, and also consider more vague descriptions to be relevant?
A vague description allows for a vague idea of safety. That’s still far better than what we have now, so I’d be happier with that than the status quo—but in fact, what people outside of AI safety seem to mean by “safe” is even less specific than having an idea about what could go wrong—it’s more often “I haven’t been convinced that it’s going to fail and hurt anyone.”
I already addressed cars and you said we should talk about rods. Then I addressed rods and you want to switch back to cars. Can you make up your mind?
Both are examples. Both are examples, but useful for illustrating different things. Cars are far more complex, and less intuitive, but they still have clear safety standards for design.
Agreed. And so until we do, we can’t claim they are safe.
A vague description allows for a vague idea of safety. That’s still far better than what we have now, so I’d be happier with that than the status quo—but in fact, what people outside of AI safety seem to mean by “safe” is even less specific than having an idea about what could go wrong—it’s more often “I haven’t been convinced that it’s going to fail and hurt anyone.”
Both are examples. Both are examples, but useful for illustrating different things. Cars are far more complex, and less intuitive, but they still have clear safety standards for design.