Maybe we are using words differently here. Almost always when people say “AI-enabled authoritarianism” excluding “loss of control” they mean “China might win the AI race and establish global authoritarianism”. I think a pause or any slowdown would currently marginally make China “more likely to win”.
Yup, we were imagining different definitions. I would bet that Bores’s concerns include extreme concentration of power in the US government / POTUS. @Eric Neyman feel free to clarify.
On bio: I think if you believe that we can build safe Superintelligence, at which point you almost certainly have bio-defense dominance, then you just want to get there as soon as possible, and any waiting or slowdown period makes someone using AI systems for bioterrorism, or some kind of national conflict escalating into bioweapons conflict more likely. More generally, I think the central driver of biorisk in a world where you aren’t worried about loss of control is foreign nations and terrorists getting access to the models, so marginal time in the period where bio is offense-dominant (as it is right now) is risky.
I think pausing now would be net good for reducing bio x-risk because it would allow more time to establish defenses before getting to more dangerous capabilities. I agree that once you hit a high enough capability level a pause starts being basd, nad this level probably happens significantly before loss of control PONR.
Appreciate the clarification! I am worried this is a temporary situation and would change if e.g. a democrat is elected next election. Separately, “include” is a relatively weak statement. Do you have any sense of how much of his concern about AI is driven by foreign governments developing powerful AI systems?
I don’t, sorry! Although, for what it’s worth, in the two conversations I’ve had with him about risks from AI, China didn’t come up.
Edited to add: also, for what it’s worth (and apologies for venturing into explicitly partisan politics), I am personally substantially more worried about AI-enabled authoritarianism under Trump than under most other possible presidents (though my worry definitely doesn’t go away entirely).
Yup, we were imagining different definitions. I would bet that Bores’s concerns include extreme concentration of power in the US government / POTUS. @Eric Neyman feel free to clarify.
I think pausing now would be net good for reducing bio x-risk because it would allow more time to establish defenses before getting to more dangerous capabilities. I agree that once you hit a high enough capability level a pause starts being basd, nad this level probably happens significantly before loss of control PONR.
I don’t speak for Bores, but I think Eli is correct.
Appreciate the clarification! I am worried this is a temporary situation and would change if e.g. a democrat is elected next election. Separately, “include” is a relatively weak statement. Do you have any sense of how much of his concern about AI is driven by foreign governments developing powerful AI systems?
I don’t, sorry! Although, for what it’s worth, in the two conversations I’ve had with him about risks from AI, China didn’t come up.
Edited to add: also, for what it’s worth (and apologies for venturing into explicitly partisan politics), I am personally substantially more worried about AI-enabled authoritarianism under Trump than under most other possible presidents (though my worry definitely doesn’t go away entirely).