(While I like it being directed towards coordination, it would not actually make a difference, as it won’t be the case that all AI companies want to stop, and so it would still not be of great significance. The thing that works is a gov-supported ban on developing ASI anywhere in the world. A commitment to stop if everyone else stops doesn’t actually come into force unless everyone is required to stop anyway.
An ask that works is, e.g., “tell the government they need to stop everyone, including us”.)
An ask that works is, e.g., “tell the government they need to stop everyone, including us”.)
For sure, I think that would be a reasonable ask too. FWIW, I think if multiple leading AI companies did make a statement like the one outlined, I think that would increase the chance of non-complying ones being made to halt by the government, even though they hadn’t made a statement themselves. That is, even one prominent AI company making this statement then starts to widen the Overton window
(While I like it being directed towards coordination, it would not actually make a difference, as it won’t be the case that all AI companies want to stop, and so it would still not be of great significance. The thing that works is a gov-supported ban on developing ASI anywhere in the world. A commitment to stop if everyone else stops doesn’t actually come into force unless everyone is required to stop anyway.
An ask that works is, e.g., “tell the government they need to stop everyone, including us”.)
For sure, I think that would be a reasonable ask too. FWIW, I think if multiple leading AI companies did make a statement like the one outlined, I think that would increase the chance of non-complying ones being made to halt by the government, even though they hadn’t made a statement themselves. That is, even one prominent AI company making this statement then starts to widen the Overton window