I don’t think you can have it both ways—don’t we want people to freak out and quarantine a bunch of places if a bio facility has an issue like this? Why would this be a sign that the plague is more likely to be really bad, rather than just a sign that we learned the lesson from COVID? (Similarly, border measures are pretty regularly just a political cudgel; see Italy tightening border controls with Spain (??) after the Ceuta breach)
G’day Nick, this is super inspiring! As well as just a large-scale distribution of phones, have you given much thought to trying to expand telco coverage also? It feels like this might start to become a bottleneck for your work, and there would be many other organisations that would benefit from better telecommunications (not to mention just the raw economic benefits of doing so).
I imagine there’s some obvious reason why this doesn’t work, but just curious!
I am very big on transparency, I strongly agree with this stance! (Admittedly it can be hard on a practical level sometimes). I am thinking more about how charities can open their data up. For example, at Kaya Guides we have our live metrics posted to our website, and I have had a lot of people I wouldn’t normally hear from reach out to tell us how much they liked it. So I think there are also some positive gains to be made there!
I would also note that another objection to transparency is regulatory hazards. This is quite common in the global health field. Sometimes it can be hard to justify transparency today in case a future risk becomes apparent and you might retroactively regret transparency.
Part of the reason we are in this position is because nobody outside the EA community cares about AI safety enough to fund it or work in it. I’m very sympathetic to this; some of these close connections are inevitable.
However, it can also be true that these connections are completely unacceptable (edit), and that Anthropic should be trying harder than they are to find or create auditors that are genuinely independent. How do we do that?
I also agree in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. So surely having less constraints on the slowdown would make it more likely to succeed?
Could someone smart please explain how preserving a US-China capabilities gap is compatible with de-escalation or slowdowns? Wasn’t that like, the whole problem with the Cold War?
Grace this is huge! Congrats!
Obligatory Metaculus link for following this
I don’t think you can have it both ways—don’t we want people to freak out and quarantine a bunch of places if a bio facility has an issue like this? Why would this be a sign that the plague is more likely to be really bad, rather than just a sign that we learned the lesson from COVID? (Similarly, border measures are pretty regularly just a political cudgel; see Italy tightening border controls with Spain (??) after the Ceuta breach)
Does service delivery get simpler for you with internet coverage, or is it about equal if you just have cell phones?
G’day Nick, this is super inspiring! As well as just a large-scale distribution of phones, have you given much thought to trying to expand telco coverage also? It feels like this might start to become a bottleneck for your work, and there would be many other organisations that would benefit from better telecommunications (not to mention just the raw economic benefits of doing so).
I imagine there’s some obvious reason why this doesn’t work, but just curious!
I am very big on transparency, I strongly agree with this stance! (Admittedly it can be hard on a practical level sometimes). I am thinking more about how charities can open their data up. For example, at Kaya Guides we have our live metrics posted to our website, and I have had a lot of people I wouldn’t normally hear from reach out to tell us how much they liked it. So I think there are also some positive gains to be made there!
I would also note that another objection to transparency is regulatory hazards. This is quite common in the global health field. Sometimes it can be hard to justify transparency today in case a future risk becomes apparent and you might retroactively regret transparency.
From SE Geyges: Is METR a meaningful check on Anthropic?.
Part of the reason we are in this position is because nobody outside the EA community cares about AI safety enough to fund it or work in it. I’m very sympathetic to this; some of these close connections are inevitable.
However, it can also be true that these connections are
completelyunacceptable (edit), and that Anthropic should be trying harder than they are to find or create auditors that are genuinely independent. How do we do that?I also agree in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. So surely having less constraints on the slowdown would make it more likely to succeed?
Right, then why risk the rhetoric of American superiority getting in the way of them signing a deal?
Could someone smart please explain how preserving a US-China capabilities gap is compatible with de-escalation or slowdowns? Wasn’t that like, the whole problem with the Cold War?