Thanks! Assuming it is actually important, correct, and previously unexplicated, it’s crazy that I can still find a useful concept/argument this simple and obvious (in retrospect) to write about, at this late date.
I’m surprised that you’re surprised. To me you’ve always been a go-to example of someone exceptionally good at both original seeing and taking weird ideas seriously, which isn’t a well-trodden intersection.
And yeah I do have a tendency to take weird ideas seriously, but what’s weird about the idea here? That some kinds of safety work could actually be harmful?
Thanks! Assuming it is actually important, correct, and previously unexplicated, it’s crazy that I can still find a useful concept/argument this simple and obvious (in retrospect) to write about, at this late date.
I’m surprised that you’re surprised. To me you’ve always been a go-to example of someone exceptionally good at both original seeing and taking weird ideas seriously, which isn’t a well-trodden intersection.
I elaborated a bit more on what I meant by “crazy”: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PMc65HgRFvBimEpmJ/legible-vs-illegible-ai-safety-problems?commentId=x9yixb4zeGhJQKtHb.
And yeah I do have a tendency to take weird ideas seriously, but what’s weird about the idea here? That some kinds of safety work could actually be harmful?
Nah, the weird idea is AI x-risk, something that almost nobody outside of LW-sphere takes seriously, even if some labs pay lip service to it.