You (Yes You) should prepare for a “February 2020” moment where suddenly AI policy becomes the most important issue in the world. You should be ready to take action if and when it does, in a detailed way.
That is, I need to prepare for a policy from anti-AI activists which will be created in haste, implemented by bureaucrats, justified using exaggerated claims, done in arbitrary ways which make no sense even compared to the policy’s stated goals; which restricts the rights of billions of people, causes enormous economic damage, and has little effect on casualties anyway, while politicians and well connected people just don’t bother obeying the restrictions themselves?
I think the lesson to be learned from the Covid reaction is not the lesson you took from it.
The lesson he seems to be taking from the COVID reaction is that people do stupid things when there’s a crisis, so you should have a clear plan prepared to help them do non-stupid things. I don’t see any advocacy for maximum panic here.
The other lesson from COVID is that people go from not caring at all to caring a whole bunch right on a dime when they become actually worried that something could affect them personally in a pretty dramatic way—and more importantly, when others around them start publicly expressing worry, there’s a rapid collective sea change.
This happens because humans tend strongly to do their epistemics as groups, not individuals.
so you should have a clear plan prepared to help them do non-stupid things
I believe Jiro’s objection is that he expects ~anything done on the matter to be stupid, and he would prefer that people simply not take action, that there be a clear plan prepared to help them not do things.
People are downvoting you without necessarily knowing where the crux is and that’s a little unfair.
Is it that
1) Strange things won’t happen with AI? 2) There doesn’t need to be any action taken by governments if strange things happen 3) Even if strange things happen (or are anticipated to happen) and government responds, it’ll be ineffectual and make a bad problem worse?
(3 and 2 are slightly different. For example, you hold (2) if you believe corporate governance is sufficient for any AI strangeness, if any.)
For me, a big part of the reason is that it went off topic immediately in an area that’s still charged by politics, so I didn’t want the discussion to centralize around something that would be predictably useless but very dramatic/distracting.
In essence, I’m trying to cut short a likely demon thread around COVID.
That is, I need to prepare for a policy from anti-AI activists which will be created in haste, implemented by bureaucrats, justified using exaggerated claims, done in arbitrary ways which make no sense even compared to the policy’s stated goals; which restricts the rights of billions of people, causes enormous economic damage, and has little effect on casualties anyway, while politicians and well connected people just don’t bother obeying the restrictions themselves?
I think the lesson to be learned from the Covid reaction is not the lesson you took from it.
The lesson he seems to be taking from the COVID reaction is that people do stupid things when there’s a crisis, so you should have a clear plan prepared to help them do non-stupid things. I don’t see any advocacy for maximum panic here.
The other lesson from COVID is that people go from not caring at all to caring a whole bunch right on a dime when they become actually worried that something could affect them personally in a pretty dramatic way—and more importantly, when others around them start publicly expressing worry, there’s a rapid collective sea change.
This happens because humans tend strongly to do their epistemics as groups, not individuals.
I believe Jiro’s objection is that he expects ~anything done on the matter to be stupid, and he would prefer that people simply not take action, that there be a clear plan prepared to help them not do things.
People are downvoting you without necessarily knowing where the crux is and that’s a little unfair.
Is it that
1) Strange things won’t happen with AI?
2) There doesn’t need to be any action taken by governments if strange things happen
3) Even if strange things happen (or are anticipated to happen) and government responds, it’ll be ineffectual and make a bad problem worse?
(3 and 2 are slightly different. For example, you hold (2) if you believe corporate governance is sufficient for any AI strangeness, if any.)
For me, a big part of the reason is that it went off topic immediately in an area that’s still charged by politics, so I didn’t want the discussion to centralize around something that would be predictably useless but very dramatic/distracting.
In essence, I’m trying to cut short a likely demon thread around COVID.