I’ve arguably lived under totalitarianism (depending on how you define it), and my parents definitely have and told me many stories about it. I think AGI increases risk of totalitarianism, and support a pause in part to have more time to figure out how to make the AI transition go well in that regard.
AGI might increase the risk of totalitarianism. OTOH, a shift in the attack-defense balance could potentially boost the veto power of individuals, so it might also work as a deterrent or a force for anarchy.
This is not the crux of my argument, however. The current regulatory Overton window seems to heavily favor a selective pause of AGI, such that centralized powers will continue ahead, even if slower due to their inherent inefficiencies. Nuclear development provides further historical evidence for this. Closed AGI development will almost surely lead to a dystopic totalitarian regime. The track record of Lesswrong is not rosy here; the “Pivotal Act” still seems to be in popular favor, and OpenAI has significantly accelerated closed AGI development while lobbying to close off open research and pioneering the new “AI Safety” that has been nothing but censorship and double-think as of 2024.
I think most people pushing for a pause are trying to push against a ‘selective pause’ and for an actual pause that would apply to the big labs who are at the forefront of progress. I agree with you, however, that the current overton window seems unfortunately centered around some combination of evals-and-mitigations that is at IMO high risk of regulatory capture (i.e. resulting in a selective pause that doesn’t apply to the big corporations that most need to pause!) My disillusionment about this is part of why I left OpenAI.
I’ve arguably lived under totalitarianism (depending on how you define it), and my parents definitely have and told me many stories about it. I think AGI increases risk of totalitarianism, and support a pause in part to have more time to figure out how to make the AI transition go well in that regard.
AGI might increase the risk of totalitarianism. OTOH, a shift in the attack-defense balance could potentially boost the veto power of individuals, so it might also work as a deterrent or a force for anarchy.
This is not the crux of my argument, however. The current regulatory Overton window seems to heavily favor a selective pause of AGI, such that centralized powers will continue ahead, even if slower due to their inherent inefficiencies. Nuclear development provides further historical evidence for this. Closed AGI development will almost surely lead to a dystopic totalitarian regime. The track record of Lesswrong is not rosy here; the “Pivotal Act” still seems to be in popular favor, and OpenAI has significantly accelerated closed AGI development while lobbying to close off open research and pioneering the new “AI Safety” that has been nothing but censorship and double-think as of 2024.
I think most people pushing for a pause are trying to push against a ‘selective pause’ and for an actual pause that would apply to the big labs who are at the forefront of progress. I agree with you, however, that the current overton window seems unfortunately centered around some combination of evals-and-mitigations that is at IMO high risk of regulatory capture (i.e. resulting in a selective pause that doesn’t apply to the big corporations that most need to pause!) My disillusionment about this is part of why I left OpenAI.
Big +1 to that. Part of why I support (some kinds of) AI regulation is that I think they’ll reduce the risk of totalitarianism, not increase it.