I’ve raised similar issues with Scott Weiner, given that, at least among Republicans and a sizable share of Independents, his name is synonymous with his bill to reduce penalties for certain cases of statutory rape[1], along with another controversial bill on reducing penalties for knowingly spreading HIV. It’s arguable that letting him make himself the face of the AI regulation movement has already damaged the movement’s reach beyond the San Francisco bubble.
Existential risk starts, by necessity, with a very extraordinary claim, and while it may not be fair, it’s naturally going to be held to a very high standard because of that. Any kind of untoward behavior by a figure that is seen as leading the movement will be disproportionately discrediting. As a metaphor, if you’ve just noticed that an alien invasion is imminent, you’re going to want to shave your beard, put on a suit, and ensure there isn’t a trace of alcohol on your breath, because people are going to make assumptions about you.
I know people have strong opinions in both directions on whether SB-145and SB-239 deserve their bad reputations, but I’m speaking strategically rather than morally. A substantial slice of the population, perhaps a majority, associates Scott Weiner more with strong opinions on the age of consent than with grounded positions on AI policy.
This… seems exactly backwards? Scott Weiner supporting morally good legislation that is potentially unpopular (according to your summary here) is evidence in favor of his integrity! I am not arguing Bores is not sufficiently popular! The thing you are advocating for here seems almost exactly backwards to me.
I’ve raised similar issues with Scott Weiner, given that, at least among Republicans and a sizable share of Independents, his name is synonymous with his bill to reduce penalties for certain cases of statutory rape[1], along with another controversial bill on reducing penalties for knowingly spreading HIV. It’s arguable that letting him make himself the face of the AI regulation movement has already damaged the movement’s reach beyond the San Francisco bubble.
Existential risk starts, by necessity, with a very extraordinary claim, and while it may not be fair, it’s naturally going to be held to a very high standard because of that. Any kind of untoward behavior by a figure that is seen as leading the movement will be disproportionately discrediting. As a metaphor, if you’ve just noticed that an alien invasion is imminent, you’re going to want to shave your beard, put on a suit, and ensure there isn’t a trace of alcohol on your breath, because people are going to make assumptions about you.
I know people have strong opinions in both directions on whether SB-145and SB-239 deserve their bad reputations, but I’m speaking strategically rather than morally. A substantial slice of the population, perhaps a majority, associates Scott Weiner more with strong opinions on the age of consent than with grounded positions on AI policy.
This… seems exactly backwards? Scott Weiner supporting morally good legislation that is potentially unpopular (according to your summary here) is evidence in favor of his integrity! I am not arguing Bores is not sufficiently popular! The thing you are advocating for here seems almost exactly backwards to me.