Everyone on Twitter has criticised the label “Responsible Scaling Policy”, but the author of this post seems not to respect what seems like a gentle attempt by OpenAI to move past this label.
If we were a bit more serious about this we would perhaps immediately rename the tag “Responsible Scaling Policies” on LessWrong into “Preparedness Frameworks” with a note on the tag page “Anthropic calls their PF ‘RSP’, but we think this is a bad label”.
(The label “RSP” isn’t perfect but it’s kinda established now. My friends all call things like this “RSPs.” And anyway I don’t think “PFs” should become canonical instead. I predict change in terminology will happen ~iff it’s attempted by METR or multiple frontier labs together. For now, I claim we should debate terminology occasionally but follow standard usage when trying to actually communicate.)
I believe labels matter, and I believe the label “preparedness framework” is better than the label “responsible scaling policy.” Kudos to OpenAI on this. I hope we move past the RSP label.
I think labels will matter most when communicating to people who are not following the discussion closely (e.g., tech policy folks who have a portfolio of 5+ different issues and are not reading the RSPs or PFs in great detail).
One thing I like about the label “preparedness framework” is that it begs the question “prepared for what?”, which is exactly the kind of question I want policy people to be asking. PFs imply that there might be something scary that we are trying to prepare for.
Everyone on Twitter has criticised the label “Responsible Scaling Policy”, but the author of this post seems not to respect what seems like a gentle attempt by OpenAI to move past this label.
If we were a bit more serious about this we would perhaps immediately rename the tag “Responsible Scaling Policies” on LessWrong into “Preparedness Frameworks” with a note on the tag page “Anthropic calls their PF ‘RSP’, but we think this is a bad label”.
(The label “RSP” isn’t perfect but it’s kinda established now. My friends all call things like this “RSPs.” And anyway I don’t think “PFs” should become canonical instead. I predict change in terminology will happen ~iff it’s attempted by METR or multiple frontier labs together. For now, I claim we should debate terminology occasionally but follow standard usage when trying to actually communicate.)
I believe labels matter, and I believe the label “preparedness framework” is better than the label “responsible scaling policy.” Kudos to OpenAI on this. I hope we move past the RSP label.
I think labels will matter most when communicating to people who are not following the discussion closely (e.g., tech policy folks who have a portfolio of 5+ different issues and are not reading the RSPs or PFs in great detail).
One thing I like about the label “preparedness framework” is that it begs the question “prepared for what?”, which is exactly the kind of question I want policy people to be asking. PFs imply that there might be something scary that we are trying to prepare for.