Separately, while I think the discussion around “is X net negative” can be useful, I think it ends up implicitly putting the frame on “can X justify that they are not net negative.”
I suspect the quality of discourse– and society’s chances to have positive futures– would improve if the frame were more commonly something like “what are the best actions for X to be taken” or “what are reasonable/high-value things that X could be doing.”
And I think it’s valid to think “X is net positive” while also thinking “I feel disappointed in X because I don’t think it’s using its power/resources in ways that would produce significantly better outcomes.”
IDK what the bar should be for considering X a “responsible actor”, but I imagine my personal bar is quite a bit higher than “(barely) net positive in expectation.”
P.S. Both of these comments are on the opinionated side, so separately, I just wanted to say thank you Neel for speaking up & for offering your current takes on Anthropic. Strong upvoted!
Separately, while I think the discussion around “is X net negative” can be useful, I think it ends up implicitly putting the frame on “can X justify that they are not net negative.”
I suspect the quality of discourse– and society’s chances to have positive futures– would improve if the frame were more commonly something like “what are the best actions for X to be taken” or “what are reasonable/high-value things that X could be doing.”
And I think it’s valid to think “X is net positive” while also thinking “I feel disappointed in X because I don’t think it’s using its power/resources in ways that would produce significantly better outcomes.”
IDK what the bar should be for considering X a “responsible actor”, but I imagine my personal bar is quite a bit higher than “(barely) net positive in expectation.”
P.S. Both of these comments are on the opinionated side, so separately, I just wanted to say thank you Neel for speaking up & for offering your current takes on Anthropic. Strong upvoted!