My dilemma is also a real-world counter-example/analogy for Strategy Stealing: if a misaligned AI does something that’s unethical from my perspective to benefit itself, how am I supposed to copy its strategy?
An alternative hypothesis I considered was that Anthropic was looking for oversight from or accountability to x-safety-conscious people, but IIRC the investment was structured through an SPV and people like me would have no voting rights, which would instead be held by the SPV’s manager (who was not known as someone very concerned about AI x-safety). Their explanation was that this is common in tech startups, which I believe is technically correct, but obviously did nothing to make me less worried about their safety/governance views given that alternatives like pass-through voting are also available and sometimes used.
I always thought it was totally crazy for people to lump Nick Bostrom and Marc Andreessen together into TESCREAL and criticize them in the same breath, but this post plays right into such criticism. (This is one of the “other political or ethical perspectives” I alluded to.) Maybe it is still wrong or unfair, but given the apparent alignment between the OP’s position and Andreessen’s interests, I would have upgraded such criticism from “totally crazy” to “worth addressing”. (I’m also forced to mentally assign some credit to such critics for apparently recognizing or predicting such alignment, that I’m personally surprised by, and which now undeniably exists at least at a surface level.)
I always thought it was totally crazy for people to lump Nick Bostrom and Marc Andreessen together into TESCREAL and criticize them in the same breath, but this post plays right into such criticism.
A few more related thoughts:
My dilemma is also a real-world counter-example/analogy for Strategy Stealing: if a misaligned AI does something that’s unethical from my perspective to benefit itself, how am I supposed to copy its strategy?
An alternative hypothesis I considered was that Anthropic was looking for oversight from or accountability to x-safety-conscious people, but IIRC the investment was structured through an SPV and people like me would have no voting rights, which would instead be held by the SPV’s manager (who was not known as someone very concerned about AI x-safety). Their explanation was that this is common in tech startups, which I believe is technically correct, but obviously did nothing to make me less worried about their safety/governance views given that alternatives like pass-through voting are also available and sometimes used.
I always thought it was totally crazy for people to lump Nick Bostrom and Marc Andreessen together into TESCREAL and criticize them in the same breath, but this post plays right into such criticism. (This is one of the “other political or ethical perspectives” I alluded to.) Maybe it is still wrong or unfair, but given the apparent alignment between the OP’s position and Andreessen’s interests, I would have upgraded such criticism from “totally crazy” to “worth addressing”. (I’m also forced to mentally assign some credit to such critics for apparently recognizing or predicting such alignment, that I’m personally surprised by, and which now undeniably exists at least at a surface level.)
I’m also bald...