I appreciate that you’re advocating for a stop, since I think that’s a much more coherent position than a pause which is basically useless; as far as I can tell pretty much everyone who’s advocating for a pause is just trying to soft-pedal their true position for public palatability in much the same way they accuse others of doing.
However, because you’re honest about what would be required to get a stop, it comes out looking pretty untenable. I read the substack post; as far as I can tell you’re advocating for dismantling the entire compute supply chain through international agreement. That seems basically impossible, and in the rare case where we got such a stop, I’m worried the damage would be so great that we would lose the ability to progress technologically as a society. In fact it seems like you’re saying “let’s give up on computers” in your substack post.
I appreciate that you’re advocating for a stop, since I think that’s a much more coherent position than a pause which is basically useless; as far as I can tell pretty much everyone who’s advocating for a pause is just trying to soft-pedal their true position for public palatability in much the same way they accuse others of doing.
However, because you’re honest about what would be required to get a stop, it comes out looking pretty untenable. I read the substack post; as far as I can tell you’re advocating for dismantling the entire compute supply chain through international agreement. That seems basically impossible, and in the rare case where we got such a stop, I’m worried the damage would be so great that we would lose the ability to progress technologically as a society. In fact it seems like you’re saying “let’s give up on computers” in your substack post.