I thought both this piece and Séb’s were unreasonable in multiple places. E.g. I thought this was tendentious:
As for our plan baking in too much and not leaving room for trial-and-error/learning by doing, it’s exactly the opposite. Plan A buys us ten more years than we otherwise would’ve had to experiment on our AIs, understand how they work, and try out different regulatory approaches before we proceed to superintelligence.
Plan A does in fact bake in some pretty strong policy commitments. “Preventing progress is the trial-and-error friendly policy regime” would be an absurd position to take about policy stances toward technological progress in general. The point is not entirely without merit—AI development could outrun policy cycles (and arguably already is) - but the framing strikes me as pretending not to appreciate Séb’s position, and that in turn make me less trusting toward the rest of the piece.
I thought both this piece and Séb’s were unreasonable in multiple places. E.g. I thought this was tendentious:
Plan A does in fact bake in some pretty strong policy commitments. “Preventing progress is the trial-and-error friendly policy regime” would be an absurd position to take about policy stances toward technological progress in general. The point is not entirely without merit—AI development could outrun policy cycles (and arguably already is) - but the framing strikes me as pretending not to appreciate Séb’s position, and that in turn make me less trusting toward the rest of the piece.