I am not going to comment much on this because I really have already spent a huge enormous amount of time clarifying my perspectives here in the threads I linked. I am happy to answer other people’s questions or address their misunderstandings, and so if someone wants to second any specific part of this, I am happy to clarify more. I will only address one thing:
It’s not really clear to me to what extent you didn’t communicate your policy well back then, or changed it on your own in the meantime (what caused it?), or changed it because of the pushback, or what.
My policy has not changed at all!
It would continue to be surprising to me if we never hosted AI scaling labs teams here, for a potentially very wide variety of different taxation levels. If the Deepmind alignment team wanted to host something here I would probably give them a substantial discount! If the Anthropic alignment team wanted to host something here I would probably charge them a small but not enormous tax. If an OpenAI capabilities team wanted to host something here the tax would be much higher, as I have clarified.
Like, look man, communication is hard. I am not saying it’s totally unreasonable to walk away with the understanding that we would at most charge a modest tax for even the most vile events, but I have now tried to clarify this 5+ times with you, and you keep just making new top-level posts not linking to any previous discussion, and speaking with great confidence.
My guess is we would have disagreement about what appropriate levels of taxation are. If someone else wants to propose concrete counterfactuals about what kind of premium we would charge for different events, I would be happy to give my best guess of them, if someone is genuinely curious about my policy here.
If the Deepmind alignment team wanted to host something here I would probably give them a substantial discount! If the Anthropic alignment team wanted to host something here I would probably charge them a small but not enormous tax.
Are you saying that you believe Google Deepmind’s alignment team is doing better work than Anthropic’s alignment team? If so, that’s a noteworthy update for me. (My vague impression was that Anthropic is the least bad AI lab, but perhaps I’ve not paid enough attention.)
Yep, I am generally on the record thinking that Deepmind’s (UK) safety team is doing the best work on a few different dimensions (including taking the existential risk problem most straightforwardly seriously, and generally contributing to discourse and sanity in the space the most).
This isn’t to say I think Deepmind is a great organization! I think a non-trivial reason for my optimism here comes from the fact that the Deepmind safety team is a much smaller part of Deepmind than the Anthropic and OpenAI teams, and this allows them to specialize more into the important things, and allows them to speak more freely because their statements don’t cause everyone to panic or be taken as representative of the org.
I am not going to comment much on this because I really have already spent a huge enormous amount of time clarifying my perspectives here in the threads I linked. I am happy to answer other people’s questions or address their misunderstandings, and so if someone wants to second any specific part of this, I am happy to clarify more. I will only address one thing:
My policy has not changed at all!
It would continue to be surprising to me if we never hosted AI scaling labs teams here, for a potentially very wide variety of different taxation levels. If the Deepmind alignment team wanted to host something here I would probably give them a substantial discount! If the Anthropic alignment team wanted to host something here I would probably charge them a small but not enormous tax. If an OpenAI capabilities team wanted to host something here the tax would be much higher, as I have clarified.
Like, look man, communication is hard. I am not saying it’s totally unreasonable to walk away with the understanding that we would at most charge a modest tax for even the most vile events, but I have now tried to clarify this 5+ times with you, and you keep just making new top-level posts not linking to any previous discussion, and speaking with great confidence.
My guess is we would have disagreement about what appropriate levels of taxation are. If someone else wants to propose concrete counterfactuals about what kind of premium we would charge for different events, I would be happy to give my best guess of them, if someone is genuinely curious about my policy here.
Tangent:
Are you saying that you believe Google Deepmind’s alignment team is doing better work than Anthropic’s alignment team? If so, that’s a noteworthy update for me. (My vague impression was that Anthropic is the least bad AI lab, but perhaps I’ve not paid enough attention.)
Yep, I am generally on the record thinking that Deepmind’s (UK) safety team is doing the best work on a few different dimensions (including taking the existential risk problem most straightforwardly seriously, and generally contributing to discourse and sanity in the space the most).
This isn’t to say I think Deepmind is a great organization! I think a non-trivial reason for my optimism here comes from the fact that the Deepmind safety team is a much smaller part of Deepmind than the Anthropic and OpenAI teams, and this allows them to specialize more into the important things, and allows them to speak more freely because their statements don’t cause everyone to panic or be taken as representative of the org.