If you disagree with much of IABIED but are still worried about AI risk, maybe the question to ask is “will the radical flank effect be positive or negative on mainstream AI safety movements?”, which seems more useful than “do I on net agree or disagree?” or “will people taking this book at face value do useful or anti-useful things?” Here’s what Wikipedia has to say on the sign of a radical flank effect:
It’s difficult to tell without hindsight whether the radical flank of a movement will have positive or negative effects.[2] However, following are some factors that have been proposed as making positive effects more likely:
Greater differentiation between moderates and radicals in the presence of a weak government.[2][13][14]: 411 As Charles Dobson puts it: “To secure their place, the new moderates have to denounce the actions of their extremist counterparts as irresponsible, immoral, and counterproductive. The most astute will quietly encourage ‘responsible extremism’ at the same time.”[15]
Existing momentum behind the cause. If change seems likely to happen anyway, then governments are more willing to accept moderate reforms in order to quell radicals.[2]
Radicalism during the peak of activism, before concessions are won.[16] After the movement begins to decline, radical factions may damage the image of moderate organizations.[16]
Low polarization. If there’s high polarization with a strong opposing side, the opposing side can point to the radicals in order to hurt the moderates.[2]
Of course it’s still useful to debate on which factual points the book is accurate, but making judgments of the book’s overall value requires modeling other parts of the world.
Low polarization. If there’s high polarization with a strong opposing side, the opposing side can point to the radicals in order to hurt the moderates.[2]
I’m not 100% sure what this means (but it sounds interesting)
Not sure whether “weak government” applies. Factually, it does not seem like the federal administration is very interested in taking action on regulating AI, but on the other hand I do not think most voters perceive the Trump government as weak? I am also not sure I understand the point, but at any rate currently the moderates are not willing to denouncethe actions publicly very much?
There is some momentum, but change does not seem to happen likely anyway. Arguably, after the FLI letter two years have passed without major changes.
I don’t think we are at peak activism yet, but also the movement is not clearly declining either.
There is strong polarization according to some viewpoints: Twitter and certain parts of the administration are very happy to point to “radical doomers” for discreditation.
Overall, I think these are a wash, but no strong yes. At any rate, I have the hunch that these factors were derived from large social movements whose path to impact was very bottom up and around high saliency issues to the public. At least for the moderates in this debate this is not the path to impact I think, it’s rather influencing key stakeholders.
If you disagree with much of IABIED but are still worried about AI risk, maybe the question to ask is “will the radical flank effect be positive or negative on mainstream AI safety movements?”, which seems more useful than “do I on net agree or disagree?” or “will people taking this book at face value do useful or anti-useful things?” Here’s what Wikipedia has to say on the sign of a radical flank effect:
Of course it’s still useful to debate on which factual points the book is accurate, but making judgments of the book’s overall value requires modeling other parts of the world.
I’m not 100% sure what this means (but it sounds interesting)
Agreed that this is a good frame.
So:
Not sure whether “weak government” applies. Factually, it does not seem like the federal administration is very interested in taking action on regulating AI, but on the other hand I do not think most voters perceive the Trump government as weak? I am also not sure I understand the point, but at any rate currently the moderates are not willing to denouncethe actions publicly very much?
There is some momentum, but change does not seem to happen likely anyway. Arguably, after the FLI letter two years have passed without major changes.
I don’t think we are at peak activism yet, but also the movement is not clearly declining either.
There is strong polarization according to some viewpoints: Twitter and certain parts of the administration are very happy to point to “radical doomers” for discreditation.
Overall, I think these are a wash, but no strong yes. At any rate, I have the hunch that these factors were derived from large social movements whose path to impact was very bottom up and around high saliency issues to the public. At least for the moderates in this debate this is not the path to impact I think, it’s rather influencing key stakeholders.