I agree that Redwood has been historically very good at explaining why they are doing what they are doing. However, I do think that the posts making the case for AI control in particular are getting a bit old, and it would be very good to see updates on them in light of everything that happened in the last two years (e.g. Buck’s recent claim that it’s quite possible that it would have been net negative to implement AI control in the past, because it would have prevented the HF incident).
>Buck’s recent claim that it would have been net negative to implement AI control in the past Where did Buck claim this? I think he has stated confusion about whether it would have been net negative, but my understanding is that he has not come down decisively.
I agree that Redwood has been historically very good at explaining why they are doing what they are doing. However, I do think that the posts making the case for AI control in particular are getting a bit old, and it would be very good to see updates on them in light of everything that happened in the last two years (e.g. Buck’s recent claim that it’s quite possible that it would have been net negative to implement AI control in the past, because it would have prevented the HF incident).
>Buck’s recent claim that it would have been net negative to implement AI control in the past
Where did Buck claim this? I think he has stated confusion about whether it would have been net negative, but my understanding is that he has not come down decisively.
Sorry, you are right, I misremembered the claim in Alex’s shortform. I’m editing my comment now.