> The thing that I am comparing is “resources invested into advocating for direct regulation, and actions that would directly slow down AI development” vs. “resources invested into getting companies to adopt RSPs and get policies around RSPs passed”.
This feels like an unfair comparison in that one of these things is much more specific/narrow than the other.
I think fairer comparisons would be:
1. A comparison of two specific/narrow goals along the lines of “Enact policy explicitly aimed at doing X.” Perhaps (a) “Advocating for pausing or stopping AI development, or perhaps for directly slowing it down via deliberate, explicit attempts to slow it down (not e.g. regulation largely or even putatively motivated by something else that happens to increase frictions to AI development)” vs. (b) “advocating for companies to adopt RSPs and get policies around RSPs passed.” I think SB53 and the EU Code of Practice have significant elements that look like the latter, whereas I’d guess we agree the former has gotten nowhere.
2. A comparison of two broad approaches to spreading general messages or frameworks with many possible policy implications. Perhaps (a) “Advocating for direct regulation [which I assume refers to the sort of examples you gave before], and actions that would directly slow down AI development” vs. (b) “Advocating for the general paradigm of doing evaluations to assess current danger, implementing mitigations to reduce current danger, and having some sort of transparency and accountability around these activities.” Here too I think we’ve seen quite a bit more motion from the latter, both from legislation and via voluntary actions from companies, though perhaps you could frame a bit of this as the former, and if you have a certain picture of the risk, you may consider all of the motion on the latter to be worthless.
> I agree and am deeply grateful for your work in the space, and your support of work in the space.
> The thing that I am comparing is “resources invested into advocating for direct regulation, and actions that would directly slow down AI development” vs. “resources invested into getting companies to adopt RSPs and get policies around RSPs passed”.
This feels like an unfair comparison in that one of these things is much more specific/narrow than the other.
I think fairer comparisons would be:
1. A comparison of two specific/narrow goals along the lines of “Enact policy explicitly aimed at doing X.” Perhaps (a) “Advocating for pausing or stopping AI development, or perhaps for directly slowing it down via deliberate, explicit attempts to slow it down (not e.g. regulation largely or even putatively motivated by something else that happens to increase frictions to AI development)” vs. (b) “advocating for companies to adopt RSPs and get policies around RSPs passed.” I think SB53 and the EU Code of Practice have significant elements that look like the latter, whereas I’d guess we agree the former has gotten nowhere.
2. A comparison of two broad approaches to spreading general messages or frameworks with many possible policy implications. Perhaps (a) “Advocating for direct regulation [which I assume refers to the sort of examples you gave before], and actions that would directly slow down AI development” vs. (b) “Advocating for the general paradigm of doing evaluations to assess current danger, implementing mitigations to reduce current danger, and having some sort of transparency and accountability around these activities.” Here too I think we’ve seen quite a bit more motion from the latter, both from legislation and via voluntary actions from companies, though perhaps you could frame a bit of this as the former, and if you have a certain picture of the risk, you may consider all of the motion on the latter to be worthless.
> I agree and am deeply grateful for your work in the space, and your support of work in the space.
I appreciate your saying so.