This is great content for LessWrong, but I worry a bit about if you tried to present these sorts of arguments to policy makers. I think they’d not read the nuance and only see a dial of more/less regulation and either it’s more regulation good or more regulation bad (politicians seem to have a hard time accepting just enough regulation except as a temporary measure until they can either increase or decrease the amount of regulation).
I think a nearby but slightly better framing would be: which specific regulations do I expect to be worse than no regulation at all. Maybe this is exactly what you had in mind, but the slightly different wording seems safer to put into the policy debate.
I read the post as mostly targeting LessWrongers (in order to get them to not lobby policymakers in productive ways), and the main thing was intuition building for “your vague models of ‘slow down AI however the cost’ are missing downsides that should be more salient”
This is great content for LessWrong, but I worry a bit about if you tried to present these sorts of arguments to policy makers. I think they’d not read the nuance and only see a dial of more/less regulation and either it’s more regulation good or more regulation bad (politicians seem to have a hard time accepting just enough regulation except as a temporary measure until they can either increase or decrease the amount of regulation).
I think a nearby but slightly better framing would be: which specific regulations do I expect to be worse than no regulation at all. Maybe this is exactly what you had in mind, but the slightly different wording seems safer to put into the policy debate.
I read the post as mostly targeting LessWrongers (in order to get them to not lobby policymakers in productive ways), and the main thing was intuition building for “your vague models of ‘slow down AI however the cost’ are missing downsides that should be more salient”