This post makes a case for working on AI risk using four robust arguments:
1. AI is plausibly impactful because it is the first system that could plausibly have long-term influence or power _without_ using humans as building blocks.
2. The impact is plausibly concerning because in general when humans gain power quickly (as they would with AI), that tends to increase existential risk.
3. We haven’t already addressed the concern: we haven’t executed a considered judgment about the optimal way to roll out AI technology.
4. It seems possible to take actions that decrease the concern, simply because there are so many possible actions that we could take; at least some of them should have some useful effect.
Planned opinion:
There’s definitely room to quibble with some of these arguments as stated, but I think this sort of argument basically works. Note that it only establishes that it is worth looking into AI risk; to justify the specific things people are doing (especially in AI alignment) you need significantly more specific and detailed arguments.
Planned summary for the Alignment Newsletter:
Planned opinion:
Seems excellent to me. Thank you as always for your work on the newsletter Rohin.