This is why they advocate for a crash program in adult human intelligence enhancement—to very rapidly make people are smart enough to get alignment right on the first try, before the international regime breaks down.
Further, only other detailed, written, plan that I’m aware of, explicitly expects to be able to maintain the international capability limiting regime for only about one decade, after which the plan is to handoff to trusted AIs. (I’m not citing that one since it’s not published yet.)
I’m not personally aware of anyone that thinks that an international ban or slowdown is a permanent equilibrium.
The AI alignment problem does not look to us like it is fundamentally unsolvable.
I wonder what the basis for this belief is? Rice’ theorem suggests that there is no general algorithm for predicting semantic properties in programs, and that the only way to know what it does is to actually run it.
From the online resources of IABIED:
This is why they advocate for a crash program in adult human intelligence enhancement—to very rapidly make people are smart enough to get alignment right on the first try, before the international regime breaks down.
Further, only other detailed, written, plan that I’m aware of, explicitly expects to be able to maintain the international capability limiting regime for only about one decade, after which the plan is to handoff to trusted AIs. (I’m not citing that one since it’s not published yet.)
I’m not personally aware of anyone that thinks that an international ban or slowdown is a permanent equilibrium.
In the link,
I wonder what the basis for this belief is? Rice’ theorem suggests that there is no general algorithm for predicting semantic properties in programs, and that the only way to know what it does is to actually run it.