Isn’t that an argument against almost any regulation? The bar on “safety case” can be adjusted up or down, and for better or worse will be.
I think real safety cases are currently very easy: sure, a couple of eggs might be broken by making an information and idea search somewhat better than google. Some jackass will use it for ill, and thus cause slightly more harm than they would’ve with Google. But the increase in risk of major harms is tiny compared to the massive benefits of giving everyone something like a competent assistant who’s near-expert in almost every domain.
Maybe we’re too hung up on downsides as a society to make this an acceptable safety case. Our societal and legal risk-aversion might make safety cases a nonstarter, even though they seem likely to be the correct model if we could collectively think even close to clearly.
Isn’t that an argument against almost any regulation? The bar on “safety case” can be adjusted up or down, and for better or worse will be.
I think real safety cases are currently very easy: sure, a couple of eggs might be broken by making an information and idea search somewhat better than google. Some jackass will use it for ill, and thus cause slightly more harm than they would’ve with Google. But the increase in risk of major harms is tiny compared to the massive benefits of giving everyone something like a competent assistant who’s near-expert in almost every domain.
Maybe we’re too hung up on downsides as a society to make this an acceptable safety case. Our societal and legal risk-aversion might make safety cases a nonstarter, even though they seem likely to be the correct model if we could collectively think even close to clearly.