Most AI companies and most employees there seem not to buy risk much, and to assign virtually no resources to address those issues. Unilaterally holding back from highly profitable AI when they won’t put a tiny portion of those profits into safety mitigation again looks like an ask out of line with their weak interest. Even at the few significant companies with higher percentages of safety effort, it still looks to me like the power-weighted average of staff is extremely into racing to the front, at least to near the brink of catastrophe or until governments buy risks enough to coordinate slowdown.
So asks like investing in research that could demonstrate problems with higher confidence, or making models available for safety testing, or similar still seem much easier to get from those companies than stopping (and they have reasonable concerns that their unilateral decision might make the situation worse by reducing their ability to do helpful things, while regulatory industry-wide action requires broad support).
As with government, generating evidence and arguments that are more compelling could be super valuable, but pretending you have more support than you do yields incorrect recommendations about what to try.
looks to me like the power-weighted average of staff is extremely into racing to the front, at least to near the brink of catastrophe or until governments buy risks enough to coordinate slowdown.
Can anyone say confident why? Is there one reason that predominates, or several? Like it’s vaguely something about status, money, power, acquisitive mimesis, having a seat at the table… but these hypotheses are all weirdly dismissive of the epistemics of these high-powered people, so either we’re talking about people who are high-powered because of the managerial revolution (or politics or something), or we’re talking about researchers who are high-powered because they’re given power because they’re good at research. If it’s the former, politics, then it makes sense to strongly doubt their epistemics on priors, but we have to ask, why can they meaningfully direct the researchers who are actually good at advancing capabilities? If it’s the latter, good researchers have power, then why are their epistemics suddenly out the window here? I’m not saying their epistemics are actually good, I’m saying we have to understand why they’re bad if we’re going to slow down AI through this central route.
There are a lot of pretty credible arguments for them to try, especially with low risk estimates for AI disempowering humanity, and if their percentile of responsibility looks high within the industry.
One view is that the risk of AI turning against humanity is less than the risk of a nasty eternal CCP dictatorship if democracies relinquish AI unilaterally. You see this sort of argument made publicly by people like Eric Schmidt, and ‘the real risk isn’t AGI revolt, it’s bad humans’ is almost a reflexive take for many in online discussion of AI risk. That view can easily combine with the observation that there has been even less takeup of AI safety in China thus far than in liberal democracies, and mistrust of CCP decision-making and honesty, so it also reduces accident risk.
With respect to competition with other companies in democracies, some labs can correctly say that they have taken action that signals they are more into taking actions towards safety or altruistic values (including based on features like control by non-profit boards or % of staff working on alignment), and will have vastly more AI expertise, money, and other resources to promote those goals in the future by locally advancing AGI, e.g. OpenAI reportedly has a valuation of over $20B now and presumably more influence over the future of AI and ability to do alignment work than otherwise. Whereas some sitting on the sidelines may lack financial and technological/research influence when it is most needed. And, e.g. the OpenAI charter has this clause:
We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. We will work out specifics in case-by-case agreements, but a typical triggering condition might be “a better-than-even chance of success in the next two years.
Technical Leadership
To be effective at addressing AGI’s impact on society, OpenAI must be on the cutting edge of AI capabilities—policy and safety advocacy alone would be insufficient.
We believe that AI will have broad societal impact before AGI, and we’ll strive to lead in those areas that are directly aligned with our mission and expertise.
Then there are altruistic concerns about the speed of AI development. E.g. over 60 million people die every year, almost all of which could be prevented by aligned AI technologies. If you think AI risk is very low, then current people’s lives would be saved by expediting development even if risk goes up some.
And of course there are powerful non-altruistic interests in enormous amounts of money, fame, and personally getting to make a big scientific discovery.
Note that the estimate of AI risk magnitude, and the feasibility of general buy-in on the correct risk level, recurs over and over again, and so credible assessments and demonstrations of large are essential to making these decisions better.
Taking an extreme perspective here: do future generations of people not alive and who no one alive now would meet have any value?
One perspective is no they don’t. From that perspective “humanity” continues only as some arbitrary random numbers from our genetics. Even Clippy probably keeps at least one copy of the human genome in a file somewhere so it’s the same case.
That is, there is no difference between the outcomes of:
we delay AI a few generations and future generations of humanity take over the galaxy
we fall to rampant AIs and their superintelligent descendants take over the galaxy
If you could delay AI long enough you would be condemning the entire population of the world to death from aging, or essentially the same case where the rampant AI kills the entire world.
There are a lot of pretty credible arguments for them to try, especially with low risk estimates for AI disempowering humanity, and if their percentile of responsibility looks high within the industry.
One view is that the risk of AI turning against humanity is less than the risk of a nasty eternal CCP dictatorship if democracies relinquish AI unilaterally. You see this sort of argument made publicly by people like Eric Schmidt, and ‘the real risk isn’t AGI revolt, it’s bad humans’ is almost a reflexive take for many in online discussion of AI risk. That view can easily combine with the observation that there has been even less takeup of AI safety in China thus far than in liberal democracies, and mistrust of CCP decision-making and honesty, so it also reduces accident risk.
My thought: seems like a convincing demonstration of risk could be usefully persuasive.
I’ll make an even stronger statement: So long as the probabilities of a technological singularity isn’t too low, they can still rationally keep working on it even if they know the risk is high, because the expected utility is much greater still.
Most AI companies and most employees there seem not to buy risk much, and to assign virtually no resources to address those issues. Unilaterally holding back from highly profitable AI when they won’t put a tiny portion of those profits into safety mitigation again looks like an ask out of line with their weak interest. Even at the few significant companies with higher percentages of safety effort, it still looks to me like the power-weighted average of staff is extremely into racing to the front, at least to near the brink of catastrophe or until governments buy risks enough to coordinate slowdown.
So asks like investing in research that could demonstrate problems with higher confidence, or making models available for safety testing, or similar still seem much easier to get from those companies than stopping (and they have reasonable concerns that their unilateral decision might make the situation worse by reducing their ability to do helpful things, while regulatory industry-wide action requires broad support).
As with government, generating evidence and arguments that are more compelling could be super valuable, but pretending you have more support than you do yields incorrect recommendations about what to try.
Can anyone say confident why? Is there one reason that predominates, or several? Like it’s vaguely something about status, money, power, acquisitive mimesis, having a seat at the table… but these hypotheses are all weirdly dismissive of the epistemics of these high-powered people, so either we’re talking about people who are high-powered because of the managerial revolution (or politics or something), or we’re talking about researchers who are high-powered because they’re given power because they’re good at research. If it’s the former, politics, then it makes sense to strongly doubt their epistemics on priors, but we have to ask, why can they meaningfully direct the researchers who are actually good at advancing capabilities? If it’s the latter, good researchers have power, then why are their epistemics suddenly out the window here? I’m not saying their epistemics are actually good, I’m saying we have to understand why they’re bad if we’re going to slow down AI through this central route.
There are a lot of pretty credible arguments for them to try, especially with low risk estimates for AI disempowering humanity, and if their percentile of responsibility looks high within the industry.
One view is that the risk of AI turning against humanity is less than the risk of a nasty eternal CCP dictatorship if democracies relinquish AI unilaterally. You see this sort of argument made publicly by people like Eric Schmidt, and ‘the real risk isn’t AGI revolt, it’s bad humans’ is almost a reflexive take for many in online discussion of AI risk. That view can easily combine with the observation that there has been even less takeup of AI safety in China thus far than in liberal democracies, and mistrust of CCP decision-making and honesty, so it also reduces accident risk.
With respect to competition with other companies in democracies, some labs can correctly say that they have taken action that signals they are more into taking actions towards safety or altruistic values (including based on features like control by non-profit boards or % of staff working on alignment), and will have vastly more AI expertise, money, and other resources to promote those goals in the future by locally advancing AGI, e.g. OpenAI reportedly has a valuation of over $20B now and presumably more influence over the future of AI and ability to do alignment work than otherwise. Whereas some sitting on the sidelines may lack financial and technological/research influence when it is most needed. And, e.g. the OpenAI charter has this clause:
Then there are altruistic concerns about the speed of AI development. E.g. over 60 million people die every year, almost all of which could be prevented by aligned AI technologies. If you think AI risk is very low, then current people’s lives would be saved by expediting development even if risk goes up some.
And of course there are powerful non-altruistic interests in enormous amounts of money, fame, and personally getting to make a big scientific discovery.
Note that the estimate of AI risk magnitude, and the feasibility of general buy-in on the correct risk level, recurs over and over again, and so credible assessments and demonstrations of large are essential to making these decisions better.
Thank you, this seems like a high-quality steelman (I couldn’t judge if it passes an ITT).
Taking an extreme perspective here: do future generations of people not alive and who no one alive now would meet have any value?
One perspective is no they don’t. From that perspective “humanity” continues only as some arbitrary random numbers from our genetics. Even Clippy probably keeps at least one copy of the human genome in a file somewhere so it’s the same case.
That is, there is no difference between the outcomes of:
we delay AI a few generations and future generations of humanity take over the galaxy
we fall to rampant AIs and their superintelligent descendants take over the galaxy
If you could delay AI long enough you would be condemning the entire population of the world to death from aging, or essentially the same case where the rampant AI kills the entire world.
Carl S.
One view is that the risk of AI turning against humanity is less than the risk of a nasty eternal CCP dictatorship if democracies relinquish AI unilaterally. You see this sort of argument made publicly by people like Eric Schmidt, and ‘the real risk isn’t AGI revolt, it’s bad humans’ is almost a reflexive take for many in online discussion of AI risk. That view can easily combine with the observation that there has been even less takeup of AI safety in China thus far than in liberal democracies, and mistrust of CCP decision-making and honesty, so it also reduces accident risk.
My thought: seems like a convincing demonstration of risk could be usefully persuasive.
I’ll make an even stronger statement: So long as the probabilities of a technological singularity isn’t too low, they can still rationally keep working on it even if they know the risk is high, because the expected utility is much greater still.