Do we think that EA/Rats will have enough leverage in the future that they could repeat the success of pressuring the labs against the confidential non-disparagement-agreement scandal? (agree/disagree vote)
I don’t think that series of events hinged on EAs/rats having leverage in the sense of wielding some flexible influence that’s 0-sum with others’ influence over the situation.
Instead, I think some people (sympathetic to EA) told a wide audience about some information that they cared about (especially the bit about withholding equity), and AI companies were then pressured by those wide audiences (including people inside of the AI companies; mostly not EAs/rats).
I think that’s a great model for having impact (and a nice asymmetric tool that’s disproportionately useful for pushing for good changes) that will remain viable in the future.
From discussing AI politics with the general public [i.e. not experts], it seems that the public perception of AI progress is bifurcating on two parallel lines:
A) Current AI progress is sudden and warrants a response (either acceleration or regulation)
B) Current AI progress is a flash-in-the-pan or a nothingburger.
(This is independent from responding to hypothetical AI-in-concept.)
These perspectives are largely factual rather than ideological. In conversation, the active tension between these two incompatible perspectives is really obvious. It makes it hard to hold meaningful conversations without being overbearing or ?accusatory.
Where does this divide come from? Is it the image hangover from the public’s interaction with the first ChatGPT? How can we bridge this when speaking to the average person?
Re: EAs having more/less leverage in the future
Do we think that EA/Rats will have enough leverage in the future that they could repeat the success of pressuring the labs against the confidential non-disparagement-agreement scandal? (agree/disagree vote)
I don’t think that series of events hinged on EAs/rats having leverage in the sense of wielding some flexible influence that’s 0-sum with others’ influence over the situation.
Instead, I think some people (sympathetic to EA) told a wide audience about some information that they cared about (especially the bit about withholding equity), and AI companies were then pressured by those wide audiences (including people inside of the AI companies; mostly not EAs/rats).
I think that’s a great model for having impact (and a nice asymmetric tool that’s disproportionately useful for pushing for good changes) that will remain viable in the future.
Sign of mainstream evolutionary biology interest in ML theory here.
From discussing AI politics with the general public [i.e. not experts], it seems that the public perception of AI progress is bifurcating on two parallel lines:
A) Current AI progress is sudden and warrants a response (either acceleration or regulation)
B) Current AI progress is a flash-in-the-pan or a nothingburger.
(This is independent from responding to hypothetical AI-in-concept.)
These perspectives are largely factual rather than ideological. In conversation, the active tension between these two incompatible perspectives is really obvious. It makes it hard to hold meaningful conversations without being overbearing or ?accusatory.
Where does this divide come from? Is it the image hangover from the public’s interaction with the first ChatGPT? How can we bridge this when speaking to the average person?