I think the claim being made is that the “dangerous” part of “slowing down dangerous tech development” is the analogous “highly specific inside-view model” which would be terrible to act on, if it were wrong. That seems valid to me. Obviously I believe that highly specific inside-view model is not wrong, but, you know, that’s how it goes.
I… don’t think that ThomasW is himself challenging the assumption. He’s saying “Read this from the perspective of someone in the US government, doesn’t seem so compelling now does it?” I’m not sure what about the post gave the impression that it was aimed to be persuasive to (for example) the US Secretary of State, but I am confident Katja did not write it for them.
I think the claim being made is that the “dangerous” part of “slowing down dangerous tech development” is the analogous “highly specific inside-view model” which would be terrible to act on, if it were wrong. That seems valid to me. Obviously I believe that highly specific inside-view model is not wrong, but, you know, that’s how it goes.
I… don’t think that ThomasW is himself challenging the assumption. He’s saying “Read this from the perspective of someone in the US government, doesn’t seem so compelling now does it?” I’m not sure what about the post gave the impression that it was aimed to be persuasive to (for example) the US Secretary of State, but I am confident Katja did not write it for them.