It is a gradient. More profitable and popular the industry is, the more difficult it is to regulate. The less profitable and popular it is, the easier it is to regulate.
I agree its a gradient, but the point I was making was that I think the movement along the gradient from not investing is minimal relative to other factors.
If I understand what you are saying, betting on the death of everyone is dumb even if you are right, by any sensible consideration of utility.
I was a bit unclear in my comment above, but the potential counterargument was that “If you invest too much on AI and especially if you’re exposed to an AI crash, you may end up doing motivated reasoning against a pause because you want your portfolio to go up”. To me its worth engaging with this argument, but as I said, there are ways to circumvent this like not being overly exposed to crash.
Just wrote this to clarify a few points because I was a bit unclear.
I agree its a gradient, but the point I was making was that I think the movement along the gradient seems to be minimal relative to other factors.
I agree it is relatively small, but when if you think the risk in question is one of a substantial chance of everyone on earth dying, even extremly tiny pushes towards the end times seem rather unappealing. Also, I think it is an especially meaningful calculation for the people who are relatively ‘high profile’ around the AI risks, since there are knock-on effects with their public actions. Any promotion, purchase or investment to some extent promotes more buy-in by making the industry look a little better in public or the bottom line, but when it is publicly signaled by someone with some perceived authority there are additional knock-on effects.
I was a bit unclear in my comment above and will edit for clarity, but the potential counterargument was that “If you invest too much on AI and especially if you’re exposed to an AI crash, you may end up doing motivated reasoning against a pause because you want your portfolio to go up”.
Got it, yea, I wasn’t discussing the motivated reasoning side just the actual effects, which when it comes to potentially catastrophic risks like AI and climate change, the risks are present in the aggregate so anything that has a promotes a drivers of the risk (whether CO2 emissions or AI development) is inseperatable from the larger system-wide movement on those drivers.
If one existed in a world where the larger, global system-wide movements of the risk drivers could be reasonably controlled, then use can be managed on a system wide level so the individual drivers never rise to the level of having catastrophic risks. However, in our present world there is no centralized global control over carbon emissions or AI development and as such imagining whether or not in such a world your use would be within tolerances isn’t meaningful.
I agree its a gradient, but the point I was making was that I think the movement along the gradient from not investing is minimal relative to other factors.
I was a bit unclear in my comment above, but the potential counterargument was that “If you invest too much on AI and especially if you’re exposed to an AI crash, you may end up doing motivated reasoning against a pause because you want your portfolio to go up”. To me its worth engaging with this argument, but as I said, there are ways to circumvent this like not being overly exposed to crash.
Just wrote this to clarify a few points because I was a bit unclear.
I agree it is relatively small, but when if you think the risk in question is one of a substantial chance of everyone on earth dying, even extremly tiny pushes towards the end times seem rather unappealing. Also, I think it is an especially meaningful calculation for the people who are relatively ‘high profile’ around the AI risks, since there are knock-on effects with their public actions. Any promotion, purchase or investment to some extent promotes more buy-in by making the industry look a little better in public or the bottom line, but when it is publicly signaled by someone with some perceived authority there are additional knock-on effects.
Got it, yea, I wasn’t discussing the motivated reasoning side just the actual effects, which when it comes to potentially catastrophic risks like AI and climate change, the risks are present in the aggregate so anything that has a promotes a drivers of the risk (whether CO2 emissions or AI development) is inseperatable from the larger system-wide movement on those drivers.
If one existed in a world where the larger, global system-wide movements of the risk drivers could be reasonably controlled, then use can be managed on a system wide level so the individual drivers never rise to the level of having catastrophic risks. However, in our present world there is no centralized global control over carbon emissions or AI development and as such imagining whether or not in such a world your use would be within tolerances isn’t meaningful.