People in AI safety/EA spheres should reorient now towards stopping continued AI capabilities escalation.
Historically, people have been unwilling to straightforwardly say “This AI situation is disgustingly dangerous, and we need to stop” and then actually work towards making this happen. I think a lot of this is downstream of deference to high status people who weren’t willing to take positions that seemed extreme.
The current situation is very, very bad, and there is no plan to make it better if we continue increasing AI capabilities at the current rate.
We need to stop things as soon as possible, so the community and the world can orient and work out what to do. We don't need to have the full plan yet, we just need to get to a state where we aren't in imminent danger.
I predict that this position will become increasingly obvious, and people will wish they reoriented earlier. I think this will be clear ex ante; when people look back they will think that they should have reoriented earlier, given the information they had at the time.
This resonates with me, thanks for sharing.
I suspect you're a lot less alone on this one than you are with donating to effective charities and were being early to COVID. (I also suspect you agree, but spelling this out for other readers).
It's tricky to get meaningful information from surveys, but this one from June finds that a slight majority of respondents thought a superintelligence would seek to take control of humanity. AI existential risk awareness is also steadily climbing, this survey says up to 34%. I would bet that still only a very small % of people are as worried as you and me and many in this community, but lots of people are somewhat worried and could probably quite quickly get more worried and be activated to do something about it.
I think this points to saying what we're worried about, and saying it clearly (like this!), especially how quickly loss of control risks are becoming very real. I'm very bullish on AI safety comms, and expect there's lots we can do there.
Is it harmful to keep your money in index funds? Let's take a random index fund like FTSE Global All Cap Index Fund. If we look at the companies it actually invests in, a lot of them are the same companies that work towards advancing the AI.
It would be ironic for some of us to be in favour of pausing AI and invest money into it at the same time. I used to keep some of my money in such funds because that was always the financial advice for regular folk like me who don't know/think much about investments. But now I don't know what to do because this feels bad. I switch some of my funds to FTSE Developed Europe ex U.K. Equity Index Fund because that has maybe twice less investment into AI but that still feels not great. Any advice for me?
Edit: I think I want advice not only about where to invest (which is appreciated), but also whether it's the right way to think about it. Maybe it doesn't matter what I invest in because something something efficient markets, but I think this doesn't apply to AI hype? Or would I offset my investment by a relatively small donation to AI safety efforts? Or maybe not because it's often not even clear if those are net-positive...
I got "0 conflicts, 1 bullet bitten", with the bullet being the repugnant conclusion.
Does this mean that you have 6 bullets you'd prefer over having to bite the repugnant conclusion? :)
I’ve been reading the biographies of moral heroes, and I’d guess ~50% of them struggled with ongoing health issues.
Being sick sucks, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be able to do a ton of good
It’s not everybody, but it’s a surprising percentage of them.
I myself struggle with a chronic mystery ailment and I find it inspiring to hear about all of these people who still managed to do great things, even though their bodies were not always so cooperative.
(Also, just as an aside, the book Stop Being Your Symptoms, Start Being Yourself didn’t cure my illness, but it did reduce its effects on my life by about 85%, and I can’t recommend it enough. It’s basically CBT/psychology stuff applied to chronic illness)
AI safety needs people everywhere but quickly stated, current talent bottlenecks to me look like:
-- Founders
-- Grantmakers
-- (technical) Research leads
-- Policy entrepreneurs and implementors (which includes a lot of technical work)
-- bets in international coordination and/or cooperation
-- All manner of supporting talent -- program leads, ops proper, public outreach, content creators, comms
Most sought-after qualities for talent are:
-- context, mission alignment, domain understanding, sophisticated views on AI strategy and threat modelling etc.
-- "good judgement", "sound epistemics", "reasoning transparency" and other similar ideas/meta-skills from the EA/rationalist cannon
-- a willingness to get shit done/bias for action (rather than be in learning mode, or people who need a lot of management and oversight, or folks with too many preferences/constraints)
-- low ego, similar to above
-- ambitious folks, since they would be really trying to be their own managers, take on bigger projects, grow themselves and their teams etc.
Finally, even having these, it's not enough to just claim to have these; job-seekers mainly trip up in being able to demonstrate and be legible about having them.