The main argument I made was: It’s already very hard to get governments and industry to meaningfully limit fossil fuel emissions, even though the relevant scientists (climatologists etc.) are near-unanimous about the long-term negative consequences. Imagine how much harder it would be if there wasn’t a separate field of climatology, and instead the only acknowledged experts on the long-term effects of fossil fuels were… petroleum industry engineers and executives! That’s the situation with AGI risk. We could create a separate field of AI risk studies, but even better would be to convince the people in the industry to take the risk seriously. Then our position would be *better* than the situation with climate change, not worse. How do we do this? Well, we do this by *not antagonizing the industry*. So don’t call for bans, at least not yet.
The two arguments that changed my mind:
(a) We are running out of time. My timelines dropped from median 2040ish to median 2030ish.
(b) I had assumed that banning or slowing down AGI research would be easier the closer we get to AGI, because people would “wake up” to the danger after seeing compelling demonstrations and warning shots etc. However I am now unsure; there’s plausibly a “whirlpool effect” where the closer you get to AGI the more everyone starts racing towards it and the harder it is to stop. Maybe the easiest time to ban it or slow it down is 10 years, even 20 years, before takeoff. (Compare to genetically engineered superbabies. Research into making them was restricted and slowed down decades before it became possible to do it, as far as I can tell.)
Ah, OK, that all sounds pretty sensible. I think ‘this sort of thinking’ is doing a lot of work here. I agree that sponsoring mobs to picket DeepMind HQ is just silly and will probably make things harder. I think buttonholing DeepMind people and government people and trying to convince them of the dangers of what they’re doing is something we should have been doing all along.
I got the impression that the late Dominic Cummings was on our side just organically without anyone needing to persuade him, in fact I seem to remember Boris Johnson saying something silly about terminators just before the covid kerfuffle broke out. It may not be too hard to convince people.
If at the very least we can get people to only do this sort of thing in secret government labs run by people who know perfectly well that they’re messing with world-ending weapons in defiance of international treaties that’s a start. Not that that will save us, but it might be slower than the current headlong rush to doom. If things go really well we might hang on long enough to experience grey goo or a deliberately engineered pandemic!
Half the problem is that the people who actually do AI research seem divided as to whether there’s any danger. If we can’t convince our own kind, convincing politicians and the like is going to be hard indeed.
All I’ve got is ill-formed intuitions. I read one science-fiction story about postage stamps ten years ago and became a doomer on the spot. I think maths and computer people are unusually easy to convince with clear true arguments and if we come up with some we might find getting most of the industry on side easier than everyone seems to think.
Have we tried to actually express our arguments in some convincing way? I’m thinking it’s not actually a very complicated argument, and most of the objections people come up with on the spot are easy enough to counter convincingly. Some sort of one-page main argument with an FAQ for frequently thought of objections might win most of the battle. I don’t suppose you happen to know of one already constructed do you?
As you point out and I agree, if we don’t win this battle then the world just suddenly ends in about ten years time so we should probably have a pop at easy routes to victory if they’re available and don’t have any obvious downsides.
Oh god, sorry, I just can’t stop myself. I mean his political reputation is shredded beyond hope of repair. Loathed by the people of the UK in the same way that Tony Blair is, and seen as brilliant but disloyal in the same way that the guy in Mad Men is after he turns on the tobacco people.
We may be touching on the mind-killer here. Let us speak of such things no further.
Dominic Cummings lives, a prosperous gentleman.
Dominic Cummings is not dead, and I should remember that my ironic flourishes are likely to be taken literally because other people on the internet don’t have the shared context that I would have if I was sounding off in the pub.
No, I think John is saying he died politically; that is, he no longer holds power. This is definitely overstated (he might get power in the future) and confusing.
The main argument I made was: It’s already very hard to get governments and industry to meaningfully limit fossil fuel emissions, even though the relevant scientists (climatologists etc.) are near-unanimous about the long-term negative consequences. Imagine how much harder it would be if there wasn’t a separate field of climatology, and instead the only acknowledged experts on the long-term effects of fossil fuels were… petroleum industry engineers and executives! That’s the situation with AGI risk. We could create a separate field of AI risk studies, but even better would be to convince the people in the industry to take the risk seriously. Then our position would be *better* than the situation with climate change, not worse. How do we do this? Well, we do this by *not antagonizing the industry*. So don’t call for bans, at least not yet.
The two arguments that changed my mind:
(a) We are running out of time. My timelines dropped from median 2040ish to median 2030ish.
(b) I had assumed that banning or slowing down AGI research would be easier the closer we get to AGI, because people would “wake up” to the danger after seeing compelling demonstrations and warning shots etc. However I am now unsure; there’s plausibly a “whirlpool effect” where the closer you get to AGI the more everyone starts racing towards it and the harder it is to stop. Maybe the easiest time to ban it or slow it down is 10 years, even 20 years, before takeoff. (Compare to genetically engineered superbabies. Research into making them was restricted and slowed down decades before it became possible to do it, as far as I can tell.)
Ah, OK, that all sounds pretty sensible. I think ‘this sort of thinking’ is doing a lot of work here. I agree that sponsoring mobs to picket DeepMind HQ is just silly and will probably make things harder. I think buttonholing DeepMind people and government people and trying to convince them of the dangers of what they’re doing is something we should have been doing all along.
I got the impression that the late Dominic Cummings was on our side just organically without anyone needing to persuade him, in fact I seem to remember Boris Johnson saying something silly about terminators just before the covid kerfuffle broke out. It may not be too hard to convince people.
If at the very least we can get people to only do this sort of thing in secret government labs run by people who know perfectly well that they’re messing with world-ending weapons in defiance of international treaties that’s a start. Not that that will save us, but it might be slower than the current headlong rush to doom. If things go really well we might hang on long enough to experience grey goo or a deliberately engineered pandemic!
Half the problem is that the people who actually do AI research seem divided as to whether there’s any danger. If we can’t convince our own kind, convincing politicians and the like is going to be hard indeed.
All I’ve got is ill-formed intuitions. I read one science-fiction story about postage stamps ten years ago and became a doomer on the spot. I think maths and computer people are unusually easy to convince with clear true arguments and if we come up with some we might find getting most of the industry on side easier than everyone seems to think.
Have we tried to actually express our arguments in some convincing way? I’m thinking it’s not actually a very complicated argument, and most of the objections people come up with on the spot are easy enough to counter convincingly. Some sort of one-page main argument with an FAQ for frequently thought of objections might win most of the battle. I don’t suppose you happen to know of one already constructed do you?
As you point out and I agree, if we don’t win this battle then the world just suddenly ends in about ten years time so we should probably have a pop at easy routes to victory if they’re available and don’t have any obvious downsides.
Did he die? If so, it’s not in the news. (I mean, I did a quick search and didn’t find it.)
Oh god, sorry, I just can’t stop myself. I mean his political reputation is shredded beyond hope of repair. Loathed by the people of the UK in the same way that Tony Blair is, and seen as brilliant but disloyal in the same way that the guy in Mad Men is after he turns on the tobacco people.
We may be touching on the mind-killer here. Let us speak of such things no further.
Dominic Cummings lives, a prosperous gentleman.Dominic Cummings is not dead, and I should remember that my ironic flourishes are likely to be taken literally because other people on the internet don’t have the shared context that I would have if I was sounding off in the pub.
Thanks for the clarification!
No, I think John is saying he died politically; that is, he no longer holds power. This is definitely overstated (he might get power in the future) and confusing.