If successful, in just a few months, you might not have to worry about the alignment problem anymore(!), and we can help him with this bill.
This seems obviously false to me. Just because we have a law in place to restrict the behavior of frontier labs doesn’t mean we get to stop worrying about alignment. It instead means that we stop having to worry quite so much that AI labs that fall under US jurisdiction will keep pressing forward in maximally dangerous ways, assuming there are good enforcement mechanisms, the bill doesn’t get watered down, China doesn’t take the lead and produce more dangerous models first, etc.
I’m not saying that such a law isn’t good in theory (I have no idea if it would be actually good because we don’t yet have the text of the bill), but just that this is a bit more excitment than I think is warranted if there were such a law.
This seems obviously false to me. Just because we have a law in place to restrict the behavior of frontier labs doesn’t mean we get to stop worrying about alignment. It instead means that we stop having to worry quite so much that AI labs that fall under US jurisdiction will keep pressing forward in maximally dangerous ways, assuming there are good enforcement mechanisms, the bill doesn’t get watered down, China doesn’t take the lead and produce more dangerous models first, etc.
I’m not saying that such a law isn’t good in theory (I have no idea if it would be actually good because we don’t yet have the text of the bill), but just that this is a bit more excitment than I think is warranted if there were such a law.
Yeah, agreed, but either way, it’s a motivating sentence, so I reckon it’s good topretendits true(except for when doing so would lead you to make a misinformed, worse decision. Then,knowthat it’s only maybe true if we try hard/​smart enough)good point, I changed it!