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?
I think this is a very important point. Seems to be a common unstated crux, and I agree that it is (probably) correct.
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.