On the 23rd of June The UK’s Office for Product Safety & Standards (OPSS), whose remit was recently expanded to include AI-enabled products, closed a public consultation on changes to their regulatory framework. Coincidentally, this was the same day that the NY primary involving Bores and Lasher ended!
In the wake of that NY primary, some people have wondered whether the AI safety community spent more than it needed to on supporting Bores. Similarly, some have wondered whether we’re spending too much on technical AI safety research, and not enough on advocacy. Basically, it isn’t clear what cost-effectiveness looks like in this space.
Recently I attended an event organised by OPSS, and I got the impression that they haven’t gotten much engagement from the AI safety community, or even industry. Also, I can see only one post on LessWrong that even mentions OPSS, and I haven’t heard of anybody getting involved in the public consultation. OPSS might not be as powerful a lever as some of the alternatives that the community is focusing on right now, but they can definitely play a role in shaping the incentives landscape, and it’s hard to imagine that it would not be cost-effective to at least open some line of communication with them.
A broader perspective here might be that we should engage more with the regulatory apparatus of middle powers.
Interesting! Have you asked the UK-focused groups why they haven’t engaged with them?
On first blush, it seems a little confusing to blame folks working on US political campaigns for not doing enough in your own backyard, but perhaps I’m missing something here.
1) I believe (with low confidence) that the AI safety community should allocate more resources to political advocacy in the middle powers on the margin.
2) I believe (with moderate confidence) that opportunities for political advocacy in the middle powers are not sufficiently salient / recognised. E.g. for someone who is a) interested in getting involved, and b) based on the UK there will have been many salient opportunities to engage with the NY primary, and not many salient opportunities to engage with OPSS’ public consultation.
Addressing 2) would probably alleviate my concerns wrt. 1). I think this perspective is distinct from blaming “folks working on US political campaigns for not doing enough”—to be clear I’m glad Bores was supported and I think that the counter-deterrence was important.
I haven’t asked the UK groups about OPSS, and I would be interested to hear their take on it!
On the 23rd of June The UK’s Office for Product Safety & Standards (OPSS), whose remit was recently expanded to include AI-enabled products, closed a public consultation on changes to their regulatory framework. Coincidentally, this was the same day that the NY primary involving Bores and Lasher ended!
In the wake of that NY primary, some people have wondered whether the AI safety community spent more than it needed to on supporting Bores. Similarly, some have wondered whether we’re spending too much on technical AI safety research, and not enough on advocacy. Basically, it isn’t clear what cost-effectiveness looks like in this space.
Recently I attended an event organised by OPSS, and I got the impression that they haven’t gotten much engagement from the AI safety community, or even industry. Also, I can see only one post on LessWrong that even mentions OPSS, and I haven’t heard of anybody getting involved in the public consultation. OPSS might not be as powerful a lever as some of the alternatives that the community is focusing on right now, but they can definitely play a role in shaping the incentives landscape, and it’s hard to imagine that it would not be cost-effective to at least open some line of communication with them.
A broader perspective here might be that we should engage more with the regulatory apparatus of middle powers.
Interesting! Have you asked the UK-focused groups why they haven’t engaged with them?
On first blush, it seems a little confusing to blame folks working on US political campaigns for not doing enough in your own backyard, but perhaps I’m missing something here.
1) I believe (with low confidence) that the AI safety community should allocate more resources to political advocacy in the middle powers on the margin.
2) I believe (with moderate confidence) that opportunities for political advocacy in the middle powers are not sufficiently salient / recognised. E.g. for someone who is a) interested in getting involved, and b) based on the UK there will have been many salient opportunities to engage with the NY primary, and not many salient opportunities to engage with OPSS’ public consultation.
Addressing 2) would probably alleviate my concerns wrt. 1). I think this perspective is distinct from blaming “folks working on US political campaigns for not doing enough”—to be clear I’m glad Bores was supported and I think that the counter-deterrence was important.
I haven’t asked the UK groups about OPSS, and I would be interested to hear their take on it!