The LLM that wrote that document doesn’t quite seem on board with what it was prompted to write. There are way too many arguments of the form, “The evidence is against X, therefore X. Surprise!” Here’s just one of them —
With approval ratings hovering around 36%, Trump needs a dramatic achievement that transcends typical policy wins.
This is like saying about a gambler, “He’s ten thousand dollars in debt. He’s gonna lose his house. He really needs this win! Therefore he will start making good bets now, to recoup his losses. You and I should bet on him winning now.” But it’s the gambler’s betting history that has put him in debt! The 36% approval rating predicts a future of more bad decisions, not a sudden pivot to good ones.
The document has a repeated theme of betting on surprises and unpredictability. But the thing about surprises is that they usually do not happen. “X would be a wild unpredictable surprise” is evidence against X, not for it.
It makes much more sense to predict that a defectbot is going to keep defecting; that rejection of treaties and cooperation predicts more rejection of treaties and cooperation; and (particularly!) that a history of decision-making on the basis of corruption and bribery predicts a future of more of the same, not a surprise pivot to effective action for the well-being of the nation and humanity.
You say that removing Trump from office is unlikely. My argument is that getting good AI policy out of Trump is much more unlikely, for the specific reason that AI policy under Trump is paid for by people who are committed to acceleration heedless of x-risk.
Removing Trump is on the critical path to achieving good US AI policy, just as it is on the critical path to achieving good US energy policy, to achieving good US public health policy, to achieving a return to international free trade, to achieving justice for the Trump-Epstein victims, and so on.
People who are interested in each of these specific causes would do well to recognize their common interest, and act together to achieve it. For this to happen may indeed be unlikely; but it would be less unlikely than the surprises that your LLM proposes to bet on.
If you read the 22 reasons Trump could be persuade you will find many way in whichbhe could be persuaded to do so by some influential people around him, even if for the wrong reason(vanity, etc).
Removing trump is not only unlikely but very very unlikely. If he was, vance would take his place and our plan would be even more valid ( see pope-vance ai connection)
The fact his ratings are low makes him more apr to be persuaded by trust influencers eith a good plan
I understand your skepticism. But our deep analysis reveals that there are other incentives and conditions that can work on Trump, beyond the pecuniary. Here are 22 reasons why we believe Trump can be persuaded:
https://www.cbpai.org/blog-1/twenty-reasons-why-trump-could-be-persuaded-to-co-lead-a-bold-global-ai-treaty-with-xi
The LLM that wrote that document doesn’t quite seem on board with what it was prompted to write. There are way too many arguments of the form, “The evidence is against X, therefore X. Surprise!” Here’s just one of them —
This is like saying about a gambler, “He’s ten thousand dollars in debt. He’s gonna lose his house. He really needs this win! Therefore he will start making good bets now, to recoup his losses. You and I should bet on him winning now.” But it’s the gambler’s betting history that has put him in debt! The 36% approval rating predicts a future of more bad decisions, not a sudden pivot to good ones.
The document has a repeated theme of betting on surprises and unpredictability. But the thing about surprises is that they usually do not happen. “X would be a wild unpredictable surprise” is evidence against X, not for it.
It makes much more sense to predict that a defectbot is going to keep defecting; that rejection of treaties and cooperation predicts more rejection of treaties and cooperation; and (particularly!) that a history of decision-making on the basis of corruption and bribery predicts a future of more of the same, not a surprise pivot to effective action for the well-being of the nation and humanity.
You say that removing Trump from office is unlikely. My argument is that getting good AI policy out of Trump is much more unlikely, for the specific reason that AI policy under Trump is paid for by people who are committed to acceleration heedless of x-risk.
Removing Trump is on the critical path to achieving good US AI policy, just as it is on the critical path to achieving good US energy policy, to achieving good US public health policy, to achieving a return to international free trade, to achieving justice for the Trump-Epstein victims, and so on.
People who are interested in each of these specific causes would do well to recognize their common interest, and act together to achieve it. For this to happen may indeed be unlikely; but it would be less unlikely than the surprises that your LLM proposes to bet on.
If you read the 22 reasons Trump could be persuade you will find many way in whichbhe could be persuaded to do so by some influential people around him, even if for the wrong reason(vanity, etc).
Removing trump is not only unlikely but very very unlikely. If he was, vance would take his place and our plan would be even more valid ( see pope-vance ai connection)
The fact his ratings are low makes him more apr to be persuaded by trust influencers eith a good plan