TsviBT—I can’t actually follow what you’re saying here. Could you please rephrase a little more directly and clearly? I’d like to understand your point. Thanks!
I don’t think this is at all true. I think most people would not do that. I think those company heads are pretty exceptional (but probably not extremely exceptional).
In this part I’m disagreeing with what I understand to be your proposed explanation for the situation. I think you’re trying to explain why “we” (Rationalists and EAs) were fooled by e.g. Sam and Dario (and you’re suggesting an update we should make, and other consequences). I think your explanation is that we did not understand that of course leaders of AI companies would pursue AI because almost anybody would in that position. I agree that “we” are under-weighting “people are just fine with risking everyone’s lives because of greed, hubris, and thrills”, and I personally don’t know how to update / what to believe about that, but I don’t think the answer is actually “most people would do the same”. I don’t think most people would e.g. lead a big coordinated PR campaign to get lots of young people to smoke lots of cigarettes, because they wouldn’t want to hurt people. (I don’t think this is obvious; most people also couldn’t do that, so it’s hard to tell.)
I’m disagreeing and saying many people would not do that.
Whether I’m correct or incorrect about that, I think this is a relevant question because
Then I’m explaining some of why I care about whether your explanation is correct.
TsviBT—I can’t actually follow what you’re saying here. Could you please rephrase a little more directly and clearly? I’d like to understand your point. Thanks!
In this part I’m disagreeing with what I understand to be your proposed explanation for the situation. I think you’re trying to explain why “we” (Rationalists and EAs) were fooled by e.g. Sam and Dario (and you’re suggesting an update we should make, and other consequences). I think your explanation is that we did not understand that of course leaders of AI companies would pursue AI because almost anybody would in that position. I agree that “we” are under-weighting “people are just fine with risking everyone’s lives because of greed, hubris, and thrills”, and I personally don’t know how to update / what to believe about that, but I don’t think the answer is actually “most people would do the same”. I don’t think most people would e.g. lead a big coordinated PR campaign to get lots of young people to smoke lots of cigarettes, because they wouldn’t want to hurt people. (I don’t think this is obvious; most people also couldn’t do that, so it’s hard to tell.)
I’m disagreeing and saying many people would not do that.
Then I’m explaining some of why I care about whether your explanation is correct.