Reducing consumer access reduces the odds of a meaningful warning shot. This logic seems cursed to me, and I don’t want to live in a world where we actively try to make things worse to make things better.
Pause advocates will not be able to use frontier models to do pause advocacy work. I think this one is a cost, but probably offset by (1) many accelerationists also not having access and (2) the big labs always retaining the advantage here anyways with their best model being leveraged to lobby for their preferred policies.
Reducing consumer access reduces the odds of a meaningful warning shot. This logic seems cursed to me, and I don’t want to live in a world where we actively try to make things worse to make things better.
I think that, in isolation, this wouldn’t significantly affect the change of a warning shot, but would make it more likely the public noticed it. The effect is probably pretty weak though.
(Updated thread to clarify that outsider advocates should have access, I’m curious about consumers as a separate thing.)
Weaker arguments I thought up:
Reducing consumer access reduces the odds of a meaningful warning shot. This logic seems cursed to me, and I don’t want to live in a world where we actively try to make things worse to make things better.
Pause advocates will not be able to use frontier models to do pause advocacy work. I think this one is a cost, but probably offset by (1) many accelerationists also not having access and (2) the big labs always retaining the advantage here anyways with their best model being leveraged to lobby for their preferred policies.
I think that, in isolation, this wouldn’t significantly affect the change of a warning shot, but would make it more likely the public noticed it. The effect is probably pretty weak though.
(Updated thread to clarify that outsider advocates should have access, I’m curious about consumers as a separate thing.)