I don’t think this is a good idea. You and others may reasonably disagree, but here’s my thinking:
Protests create an us vs. them mentality. Two groups are pitted against each other, with the protestors typically cast in the role of victims who are demanding to be heard.
I don’t see this achieving the ends we need. If people push OpenAI to be for or against AI development, they are going to be for development. A protest, as I see it, risks making them dig in to a position and be less open to cooperating on safety efforts.
I’d rather see continued behind the scenes work to get them to be more cautious, e.g. like the work ARC Evals is doing. It seems more likely we can have a positive influence by working with them rather than directly opposing them.
Protest seem more effective when it’s an expression of a mass movement. It’s not clear to me there’s a mass movement to oppose what OpenAI is doing, so it’s hard for me to see what positive impact a protest would have. Seems much more likely to make things worse than better given the conditions under which you would be protesting.
Protests create an us vs. them mentality. Two groups are pitted against each other, with the protestors typically cast in the role of victims who are demanding to be heard.
Dilemma (“choose a side”) is a principle of non-violent direct action; why is an us vs. them mentality necessarily a bad thing? Do you oppose protest in principle?
If people push OpenAI to be for or against AI development, they are going to be for development. A protest, as I see it, risks making them dig in to a position and be less open to cooperating on safety efforts.
Would you say this about the climate movement pressuring fossil fuel companies to transition away from fossil fuels?
I’d rather see continued behind the scenes work to get them to be more cautious, e.g. like the work ARC Evals is doing. It seems more likely we can have a positive influence by working with them rather than directly opposing them.
I don’t think this is a good idea. You and others may reasonably disagree, but here’s my thinking:
Protests create an us vs. them mentality. Two groups are pitted against each other, with the protestors typically cast in the role of victims who are demanding to be heard.
I don’t see this achieving the ends we need. If people push OpenAI to be for or against AI development, they are going to be for development. A protest, as I see it, risks making them dig in to a position and be less open to cooperating on safety efforts.
I’d rather see continued behind the scenes work to get them to be more cautious, e.g. like the work ARC Evals is doing. It seems more likely we can have a positive influence by working with them rather than directly opposing them.
Protest seem more effective when it’s an expression of a mass movement. It’s not clear to me there’s a mass movement to oppose what OpenAI is doing, so it’s hard for me to see what positive impact a protest would have. Seems much more likely to make things worse than better given the conditions under which you would be protesting.
Dilemma (“choose a side”) is a principle of non-violent direct action; why is an us vs. them mentality necessarily a bad thing? Do you oppose protest in principle?
Would you say this about the climate movement pressuring fossil fuel companies to transition away from fossil fuels?
I think we need both – here’s evidence for the radical flank effect.
Strongly agree – and this is how all mass movements start, no?