You know how a common trick for solving a really tough math problem is to build a simpler toy problem and solve that first?
The FLI letter is a toy coordination problem.
It provides a Schelling point around which to organize public conversation and a starting point from which to apply public pressure.
It likewise serves as a way for people inside these companies, and especially their leaders who are otherwise trapped in race dynamics, to have a basis on which to argue for slowing down.
It would delay innovations which require larger training runs to achieve by 6 months. Note that it would not delay any other kind of innovation like those from fine tuning, longer training runs of the same size, and algorithmic improvements.
It is a straightforward goal that is plausible to achieve.
These bulletpoints are my impression of the goals based on comments by Max Tegmark on the subject. As I said, I think of this as a kind of toy coordination problem. The way this cashes out in reality for me is:
Under the current circumstances, I do not believe alignment research can beat capabilities research to catastrophic success.
In order to buy time for alignment to succeed, we need to coordinate to slow down capabilities research.
We currently have no basis of coordination by which to do that.
In general, coordination is a positive feedback loop: the more any set of groups coordinate, the more coordination that set can do. Therefore I expect something that is actually real but still mostly symbolic to be a good starting point for trying to build coordination among this new, extended set of groups.
In sum, what it will actually do is make it easier to do things in the future.
You know how a common trick for solving a really tough math problem is to build a simpler toy problem and solve that first?
The FLI letter is a toy coordination problem.
It provides a Schelling point around which to organize public conversation and a starting point from which to apply public pressure.
It likewise serves as a way for people inside these companies, and especially their leaders who are otherwise trapped in race dynamics, to have a basis on which to argue for slowing down.
It would delay innovations which require larger training runs to achieve by 6 months. Note that it would not delay any other kind of innovation like those from fine tuning, longer training runs of the same size, and algorithmic improvements.
It is a straightforward goal that is plausible to achieve.
These bulletpoints are my impression of the goals based on comments by Max Tegmark on the subject. As I said, I think of this as a kind of toy coordination problem. The way this cashes out in reality for me is:
Under the current circumstances, I do not believe alignment research can beat capabilities research to catastrophic success.
In order to buy time for alignment to succeed, we need to coordinate to slow down capabilities research.
We currently have no basis of coordination by which to do that.
In general, coordination is a positive feedback loop: the more any set of groups coordinate, the more coordination that set can do. Therefore I expect something that is actually real but still mostly symbolic to be a good starting point for trying to build coordination among this new, extended set of groups.
In sum, what it will actually do is make it easier to do things in the future.