My view is that we can get a bunch of improvement in safety without massive shifts to the Overton window and poorly executed attempts at shifting the Overton window with bad argumentation (or bad optics) can poison other efforts.
I think well-executed attempts at massively shifting the Overton window are great and should be part of the portfolio, but much of the marginal doom reduction comes from other efforts which don’t depend on this. (And especially don’t depend on this happening prior to direct strong evidence of misalignment risk or some major somewhat-related incident.)
I disagree on the specifics-level of this aspect of the post and think that when communicating the case for risk, it’s important to avoid bad argumentation due to well-poisoning effects (as well as other reasons, like causing poor prioritization).
My view is that we can get a bunch of improvement in safety without massive shifts to the Overton window and poorly executed attempts at shifting the Overton window with bad argumentation (or bad optics) can poison other efforts.
I think well-executed attempts at massively shifting the Overton window are great and should be part of the portfolio, but much of the marginal doom reduction comes from other efforts which don’t depend on this. (And especially don’t depend on this happening prior to direct strong evidence of misalignment risk or some major somewhat-related incident.)
I disagree on the specifics-level of this aspect of the post and think that when communicating the case for risk, it’s important to avoid bad argumentation due to well-poisoning effects (as well as other reasons, like causing poor prioritization).