Came across this account via a random lawyer I’m following on Twitter (for investment purposes), who commented, “Huge L for the e/acc nerds tonight”. Crazy times...
I think this makes sense as an incentive for AI acceleration- even if someone is trying to accelerate AI for altruistic reasons e.g. differential tech development (e.g. maybe they calculate that LLMs have better odds of interpretability succeeding because they think in English), then they should still lose access to their AI lab shortly after accelerating AI.
They get so much personal profit from accelerating AI, so only people prepared to personally lose it all within 3 years are prepared to sacrifice enough to do something as extreme as burning the remaining timeline.
I’m generally not on board with leadership shakeups in the AI safety community, because the disrupted alliance webs create opportunities for resourceful outsiders to worm their way in. I worry especially about incentives for the US natsec community to do this. But when I look at it from the game theory/moloch perspective, it might be worth the risk, if it means setting things up so that the people who accelerate AI always fail to be the ones who profit off of it, and therefore can only accelerate because they think it will benefit the world.
Came across this account via a random lawyer I’m following on Twitter (for investment purposes), who commented, “Huge L for the e/acc nerds tonight”. Crazy times...
I think this makes sense as an incentive for AI acceleration- even if someone is trying to accelerate AI for altruistic reasons e.g. differential tech development (e.g. maybe they calculate that LLMs have better odds of interpretability succeeding because they think in English), then they should still lose access to their AI lab shortly after accelerating AI.
They get so much personal profit from accelerating AI, so only people prepared to personally lose it all within 3 years are prepared to sacrifice enough to do something as extreme as burning the remaining timeline.
I’m generally not on board with leadership shakeups in the AI safety community, because the disrupted alliance webs create opportunities for resourceful outsiders to worm their way in. I worry especially about incentives for the US natsec community to do this. But when I look at it from the game theory/moloch perspective, it might be worth the risk, if it means setting things up so that the people who accelerate AI always fail to be the ones who profit off of it, and therefore can only accelerate because they think it will benefit the world.