A cause, any cause whatsoever, can only get the support of one of the two major US parties. Weirdly, it is also almost impossible to get the support of less than one of the major US parties, but putting that aside, getting the support of both is impossible. Look at Covid if you want a recent demonstration.
Broadly speaking, you want the support of the left if you want the gov to do something, the right if you are worried about the gov doing something. This is because the left is the gov’s party (look at how DC votes, etc), so left admins are unified and capable by comparison with right admins, which suffer from ‘Yes Minister’ syndrome.
AI safety is a cause that needs the gov to act affirmatively. It’s proponents are asking the US to take a strong and controversial position, that its industry will vigorously oppose. You need a lefty gov to pull something like that off, if indeed it is possible at all.
Getting support from the right will automatically decrease your support from the left. Going on Glenn Beck would be an own goal, unless EY kicked him in the dick while they were live.
I don’t think that is correct. Current counter-examples are:
view on China; both parties dislike China and want to prevent them from becoming more powerful [1]
support for Ukraine; both sides are against Russia[2]
While there are differences in opinion on these issues, overall sentiment is generally similar. I think AI can be one such issue, since overall concern (not X-Risk) appears to be bipartisan.[3]
The Republicans are effectively pro Russia in that with all the US support, Ukraine is holding or marginally winning. Were US support reduced or not increased significantly, the outcome of this war will be the theft of a significant chunk of Ukraine by Russia, about 20 percent of the territory.
It is possible that if the republicans regain control of both houses and the presidency they will evolve their views to full support for Ukraine, they may be feigning concern over the cost as a negotiating tactic.
The issue with AI/AGI research is there are reasons for a very strong, pro AGI group to exist. If for no other reason that if international rivals refuse any meaningful agreements to slow or pause AGI research (what I think is the 90 percent outcome), the USA will have no choice but to keep up.
Whether this continues as a bunch of private companies or a centralized national defense effort I don’t know.
In addition, shareholders of tech companies, state governments—there are many parties who will financially benefit if AGIs are built and deployed at full scale. They want to see the 100 or 1000x returns that are theoretically possible, and can spend a lot of money to manipulate the refs here. They will probably demand evidence that the technology is too dangerous to make them rich instead of just speculation/models of the future we have now.
The Republicans are effectively pro Russia in that with all the US support, Ukraine is holding or marginally winning. Were US support reduced or not increased significantly, the outcome of this war will be the theft of a significant chunk of Ukraine by Russia, about 20 percent of the territory.
I think the framing of the question plays a big role here. If your claim was added as an implication for example, I expect the answer would look very differently. There are other issues as well, where there is bipartisan support, these were just the first two that came readily to my mind.
The issue with AI/AGI research is there are reasons for a very strong, pro AGI group to exist.
Yes, but I do not think Eliezer going on a conservative podcast and talking about the issue will increase the reasons / likelihood.
Sure. I was simply explaining there are two factions and there are several outcomes that are likely. The thing about the pro AGI side is it offers the opportunity to make an immense amount of money. The terra-dollars get a vote in US politics, obviously Chinese decision making, I am unsure how the eu makes rules but probably there also.
What even funds the anti AGI side? What money is there to be made impeding a technology? Union dues? Individual donations from citizens concerned about imminent existential threats? As a business case it doesn’t pencil in and potentially there could be bipartisan support for massive investment in AI, instead, where neither political party takes the side of the views here on lesswrong. But one party might be in favor of more regulations than the other.
A cause, any cause whatsoever, can only get the support of one of the two major US parties. Weirdly, it is also almost impossible to get the support of less than one of the major US parties, but putting that aside, getting the support of both is impossible. Look at Covid if you want a recent demonstration.
Broadly speaking, you want the support of the left if you want the gov to do something, the right if you are worried about the gov doing something. This is because the left is the gov’s party (look at how DC votes, etc), so left admins are unified and capable by comparison with right admins, which suffer from ‘Yes Minister’ syndrome.
AI safety is a cause that needs the gov to act affirmatively. It’s proponents are asking the US to take a strong and controversial position, that its industry will vigorously oppose. You need a lefty gov to pull something like that off, if indeed it is possible at all.
Getting support from the right will automatically decrease your support from the left. Going on Glenn Beck would be an own goal, unless EY kicked him in the dick while they were live.
I would agree this is generally true, but there are exceptions: containment of Chinese influence being one recent example.
I don’t think that is correct. Current counter-examples are:
view on China; both parties dislike China and want to prevent them from becoming more powerful [1]
support for Ukraine; both sides are against Russia[2]
While there are differences in opinion on these issues, overall sentiment is generally similar. I think AI can be one such issue, since overall concern (not X-Risk) appears to be bipartisan.[3]
https://news.gallup.com/poll/471551/record-low-americans-view-china-favorably.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/world/most-americans-support-us-arming-ukraine-reutersipsos-2023-06-28/
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/ai-and-human-enhancement-americans-openness-is-tempered-by-a-range-of-concerns/ps_2022-03-17_ai-he_01-04/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/15/more-than-four-in-ten-republicans-now-say-the-us-is-providing-too-much-aid-to-ukraine/
The Republicans are effectively pro Russia in that with all the US support, Ukraine is holding or marginally winning. Were US support reduced or not increased significantly, the outcome of this war will be the theft of a significant chunk of Ukraine by Russia, about 20 percent of the territory.
It is possible that if the republicans regain control of both houses and the presidency they will evolve their views to full support for Ukraine, they may be feigning concern over the cost as a negotiating tactic.
The issue with AI/AGI research is there are reasons for a very strong, pro AGI group to exist. If for no other reason that if international rivals refuse any meaningful agreements to slow or pause AGI research (what I think is the 90 percent outcome), the USA will have no choice but to keep up.
Whether this continues as a bunch of private companies or a centralized national defense effort I don’t know.
In addition, shareholders of tech companies, state governments—there are many parties who will financially benefit if AGIs are built and deployed at full scale. They want to see the 100 or 1000x returns that are theoretically possible, and can spend a lot of money to manipulate the refs here. They will probably demand evidence that the technology is too dangerous to make them rich instead of just speculation/models of the future we have now.
I think the framing of the question plays a big role here. If your claim was added as an implication for example, I expect the answer would look very differently. There are other issues as well, where there is bipartisan support, these were just the first two that came readily to my mind.
Yes, but I do not think Eliezer going on a conservative podcast and talking about the issue will increase the reasons / likelihood.
Sure. I was simply explaining there are two factions and there are several outcomes that are likely. The thing about the pro AGI side is it offers the opportunity to make an immense amount of money. The terra-dollars get a vote in US politics, obviously Chinese decision making, I am unsure how the eu makes rules but probably there also.
What even funds the anti AGI side? What money is there to be made impeding a technology? Union dues? Individual donations from citizens concerned about imminent existential threats? As a business case it doesn’t pencil in and potentially there could be bipartisan support for massive investment in AI, instead, where neither political party takes the side of the views here on lesswrong. But one party might be in favor of more regulations than the other.