Can I mark you down as in favor of AI related NDAs? In your ideal world, would a perfect solution be for a single large company to hire all the capable AI researchers, give them aggressive non disclosure and non compete agreements, then shut down every part of the company except the legal department that enforces the agreements?
I’m a different person but I would support contracts which disallow spread of capabilities insights, but not contracts which disallow criticism of AI orgs (and especially not surprise ones).
IIUC the latter is what what the OAI-NonDisparagement-controversy has been about.
I’m not confident the following is true, but it seems to me that your first question was written under a belief that the controversy was about both of those at once. It seems like it was trying (under that world model) to ‘axiomatically’ elicit a belief in disagreement with an ongoing controversy, which would be non-truthseeking.
That seems like a misgeneralization, and I’d like to hear what thoughts you’d have depending on the various answers that could be given in the framework you raise. I’d imagine that there are a wide variety of possible ways a person could be limited in what they choose to say, and being threatened if they say things is a different situation than if they voluntarily do not: for example, the latter allows them to criticize.
Based on your recent post here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/55rc6LJcqRmyaEr9T/please-stop-publishing-ideas-insights-research-about-ai
Can I mark you down as in favor of AI related NDAs? In your ideal world, would a perfect solution be for a single large company to hire all the capable AI researchers, give them aggressive non disclosure and non compete agreements, then shut down every part of the company except the legal department that enforces the agreements?
I’m a different person but I would support contracts which disallow spread of capabilities insights, but not contracts which disallow criticism of AI orgs (and especially not surprise ones).
IIUC the latter is what what the OAI-NonDisparagement-controversy has been about.
I’m not confident the following is true, but it seems to me that your first question was written under a belief that the controversy was about both of those at once. It seems like it was trying (under that world model) to ‘axiomatically’ elicit a belief in disagreement with an ongoing controversy, which would be non-truthseeking.
That seems like a misgeneralization, and I’d like to hear what thoughts you’d have depending on the various answers that could be given in the framework you raise. I’d imagine that there are a wide variety of possible ways a person could be limited in what they choose to say, and being threatened if they say things is a different situation than if they voluntarily do not: for example, the latter allows them to criticize.