I agree with you, but also think you’re not going far enough. In a world where things are changing radically, the space of possibilities opens up dramatically. And so it’s less a question of “does advocating for policy X become viable?”, and more a question of “how can we design the kinds of policies that our past selves wouldn’t even have been able to conceive of?”
In other words, in a world that’s changing a lot, you want to avoid privileging your hypotheses in advance, which is what it feels like the “pro AI pause vs anti AI pause” debate is doing.
(And yes, in some sense those radical future policies might fall into a broad category like “AI pause”. But that doesn’t mean that our current conception of “AI pause” is a very useful guide for how to make those future policies come about.)
I agree with you, but also think you’re not going far enough. In a world where things are changing radically, the space of possibilities opens up dramatically. And so it’s less a question of “does advocating for policy X become viable?”, and more a question of “how can we design the kinds of policies that our past selves wouldn’t even have been able to conceive of?”
In other words, in a world that’s changing a lot, you want to avoid privileging your hypotheses in advance, which is what it feels like the “pro AI pause vs anti AI pause” debate is doing.
(And yes, in some sense those radical future policies might fall into a broad category like “AI pause”. But that doesn’t mean that our current conception of “AI pause” is a very useful guide for how to make those future policies come about.)