Strong upvoted. I consider this topic really important.
My guess is that most of the reasons are historical ones that shouldn’t hold today. In the past, politics was the mind-killer on this platform, and it might still be, but progress can be made, and I think this progress is almost necessary for us to be saved:
The AI Act and its code of practice
SB1047 was very close to being a major success
The Seoul Summit during which major labs committed to publishing their safety and security frameworks
What’s the plan otherwise? Have a pivotal act from OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google? I don’t want this approach; it seems completely undemocratic honestly, and I don’t think it’s technically feasible.
I think the good Schelling point is a treaty of non-development of superintelligence (like advocated at aitreaty.org or this one). That’s the only reasonable option.
I think the real argument is that there are very few technical people willing to reconsider their careers, or they don’t know how to do it, or that there isn’t enough training available. Beyond entry level courses like BlueDot or AI Safety Colab, good advanced training is limited. Only Horizon Institute, Talos Network, and MATS (which accepts approximately 10 people per cohort), plus ML4Good (which is soon transitioning from a technical bootcamp to a governance one) offer resources to become proficient in AI Governance.
Did you know that it actually mentions “alignment with human intent” as a key factor for regulation of systemic risks?
I do not know of any other law that frames alignment this way and makes it a key impact area.
It also mentions alignment as part of the Technical documentation that AI developers must make publicly available.
I feel like this already merits acknowledgment by this community. This can enable research (and funds) if cited correctly by universities and non-profits in Europe.
Strong upvoted. I consider this topic really important.
My guess is that most of the reasons are historical ones that shouldn’t hold today. In the past, politics was the mind-killer on this platform, and it might still be, but progress can be made, and I think this progress is almost necessary for us to be saved:
The AI Act and its code of practice
SB1047 was very close to being a major success
The Seoul Summit during which major labs committed to publishing their safety and security frameworks
What’s the plan otherwise? Have a pivotal act from OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google? I don’t want this approach; it seems completely undemocratic honestly, and I don’t think it’s technically feasible.
I think the good Schelling point is a treaty of non-development of superintelligence (like advocated at aitreaty.org or this one). That’s the only reasonable option.
I think the real argument is that there are very few technical people willing to reconsider their careers, or they don’t know how to do it, or that there isn’t enough training available. Beyond entry level courses like BlueDot or AI Safety Colab, good advanced training is limited. Only Horizon Institute, Talos Network, and MATS (which accepts approximately 10 people per cohort), plus ML4Good (which is soon transitioning from a technical bootcamp to a governance one) offer resources to become proficient in AI Governance.
Here’s more detail on my position: https://x.com/CRSegerie/status/1907433122624622824
Happy to have a dialogue on the subject with someone who disagrees.
@Charbel-Raphaël- as you’ve mentioned the European AI Act.
Did you know that it actually mentions “alignment with human intent” as a key factor for regulation of systemic risks?
I do not know of any other law that frames alignment this way and makes it a key impact area.
It also mentions alignment as part of the Technical documentation that AI developers must make publicly available.
I feel like this already merits acknowledgment by this community. This can enable research (and funds) if cited correctly by universities and non-profits in Europe.