This seems to suggest “should we relax nuclear power regulation 1% less expensive to comply?” as a promising way to fix economics of nuclear power, and I don’t buy that at all. Maybe it’s different because Chernobyl happened, and the movie like The China Syndrome was made about nuclear accident?
That sounds very hopeful to me but doesn’t seem true to me. It implies slowing down AI will be easy, it just needs Chernobyl-sized disaster and a good movie about it. Chernobyl disaster was nearly harmless compared to COVID-19, and even COVID-19 was hardly an existential threat. If slowing down AI is this easy we probably shouldn’t waste time worrying about it before Chernobyl.
The difference between regulation and research is that the former has a large amount of friction, making it about as hard to push a 1% regulation through as a 10% one.
In contrast, the incremental 1% improvements in the development of capabilities is just what happens by default, as research organizations follow their charter.
This seems to suggest “should we relax nuclear power regulation 1% less expensive to comply?” as a promising way to fix economics of nuclear power, and I don’t buy that at all. Maybe it’s different because Chernobyl happened, and the movie like The China Syndrome was made about nuclear accident?
That sounds very hopeful to me but doesn’t seem true to me. It implies slowing down AI will be easy, it just needs Chernobyl-sized disaster and a good movie about it. Chernobyl disaster was nearly harmless compared to COVID-19, and even COVID-19 was hardly an existential threat. If slowing down AI is this easy we probably shouldn’t waste time worrying about it before Chernobyl.
The difference between regulation and research is that the former has a large amount of friction, making it about as hard to push a 1% regulation through as a 10% one.
In contrast, the incremental 1% improvements in the development of capabilities is just what happens by default, as research organizations follow their charter.