Trump tweeting remarks is less of a PR crisis than FTX collapsing was. Trump says wild stuff constantly. Are we actually gonna invade Greendland? Probably not.
It is for sure sad that this is likely going to increase the polarization of AI Safety.
FWIW, I think interested potential grantees can guesstime these probabilities & the likely feedback themselves. They can just ask their favorite LLM. This has the advantage that the org doesn't have to support this themselves, where it would give a false sense of confidence to possible grantees.
I wish there were fewer satirical shitposts like this that don't self-label as AI pseudo-slop. Or if they exist, it would be nice if they said something original rather than 'have you thought about how AI risk is like X other thing?' without engaging in more than a surface level analogy.
Because actually self-copying machines ARE scary. Nanoscale fabricators with self-replication are possible (proof, bacteria exist).
If there were an equivalent to the METR graph for 'proportion of 3D printer value which a 3D printer can generate', and that was a straight line that implied we got to 99%+ in 4 years, I'd be pretty spooked!
Says "if you're explaining you're losing". IMO explanations are good. You might be correct that needing to explain is a bad sign for whether you are winning a comms battle. But I would still rather offer people genuine explanations, so we can come to a shared understanding of the truth (exactly like this convo).
My reading of this is that you're claiming who says something is more important than what is said. Again, you may be correct here on how to optimally persuade. But I personally want to value good arguments, no matter who makes them.
Feels like it is straightforwardly asking folks to not engage in debate or disagreements. I don't really get how we come to a shared understanding of the truth if we don't offer clear reasons for why we disagree with particular points.
Again, I very much am not saying you are wrong about the implications of ignoring strategic communication norms. You are likely right. I would nonetheless prefer to be in a community that decided to communicate honestly and earnestly, even with people that it disagrees with.
1 / 4 / 6 feel like they might make sense strategically, but I'm proud to be part of a community that often values epistemic humility and correct argumentation above strategic communication.
RE AI policy donations: you should strongly consider providing hard money to political campaigns with pro-AI safety candidates. Campaign finance limits give you more leverage than usual as a small to medium donor.
Zach Stein-Perlman and Eric Neyman have some good resources on this.
Depending on your donation size, LongView offers donation advising.
Also, of course, consider pivoting to direct work rather than EtG, since money is likely to be less valuable.
Your overall cause areas & thoughts make a lot of sense to me.
I generally don't engage with social media (beyond LR/EA forum, and I'm not sure I'd endorse my use of those). Maybe you should use Twitter less?
Or if you're getting some value out of Twitter, you could consider if there are alternative ways for you to get that value without getting the vitriol.
Trump tweeting remarks is less of a PR crisis than FTX collapsing was. Trump says wild stuff constantly. Are we actually gonna invade Greendland? Probably not.
It is for sure sad that this is likely going to increase the polarization of AI Safety.
But its not a scandal, and FTX very much was.
Thanks for sharing this.
FWIW, I think interested potential grantees can guesstime these probabilities & the likely feedback themselves. They can just ask their favorite LLM. This has the advantage that the org doesn't have to support this themselves, where it would give a false sense of confidence to possible grantees.
I wish there were fewer satirical shitposts like this that don't self-label as AI pseudo-slop. Or if they exist, it would be nice if they said something original rather than 'have you thought about how AI risk is like X other thing?' without engaging in more than a surface level analogy.
Because actually self-copying machines ARE scary. Nanoscale fabricators with self-replication are possible (proof, bacteria exist).
If there were an equivalent to the METR graph for 'proportion of 3D printer value which a 3D printer can generate', and that was a straight line that implied we got to 99%+ in 4 years, I'd be pretty spooked!
Says "if you're explaining you're losing". IMO explanations are good. You might be correct that needing to explain is a bad sign for whether you are winning a comms battle. But I would still rather offer people genuine explanations, so we can come to a shared understanding of the truth (exactly like this convo).
My reading of this is that you're claiming who says something is more important than what is said. Again, you may be correct here on how to optimally persuade. But I personally want to value good arguments, no matter who makes them.
Feels like it is straightforwardly asking folks to not engage in debate or disagreements. I don't really get how we come to a shared understanding of the truth if we don't offer clear reasons for why we disagree with particular points.
Again, I very much am not saying you are wrong about the implications of ignoring strategic communication norms. You are likely right. I would nonetheless prefer to be in a community that decided to communicate honestly and earnestly, even with people that it disagrees with.
3 & 5 make sense.
1 / 4 / 6 feel like they might make sense strategically, but I'm proud to be part of a community that often values epistemic humility and correct argumentation above strategic communication.
Ah, I read OP's profile, and I see that it would be harder for them than average to switch to direct work (so likely less strong advice there).
Major congrats on the 50% donation pledge, that's awesome to see.
RE AI policy donations: you should strongly consider providing hard money to political campaigns with pro-AI safety candidates. Campaign finance limits give you more leverage than usual as a small to medium donor.
Zach Stein-Perlman and Eric Neyman have some good resources on this.
Depending on your donation size, LongView offers donation advising.
Also, of course, consider pivoting to direct work rather than EtG, since money is likely to be less valuable.
Your overall cause areas & thoughts make a lot of sense to me.
I generally don't engage with social media (beyond LR/EA forum, and I'm not sure I'd endorse my use of those). Maybe you should use Twitter less?
Or if you're getting some value out of Twitter, you could consider if there are alternative ways for you to get that value without getting the vitriol.
Yes, of course. Both the following statements can be true.
A slowdown that wasn't trying to maintain the US lead vs China would be a more impactful slowdown.
Such a slowdown would still constitute a slowdown, and thus be good.
If you are in the lead (the US is) it is possible to slowdown by a degree which maintains the lead, but is nonetheless still a slowdown.
I directionally agree that an even bigger slowdown would be good. But a slowdown which maintains some of the US vs China lead 'is' possible.
I would not let perfect be the enemy of the good here.