More egregiously, do I agree with “Pause AI if there is mass unemployment” if I think AI should’ve been Paused 5 years ago? Similarly for “Responsible scaling policy or similar” that litigates precisely how many centimeters from the edge of a cliff you need to stop (or maybe to start wearing a helmet, so that you can say that now you don’t need to stop since you are being responsible). Like, it’s better if those things at least are done, but it’s not so good that those are the things that are done.
Good point about sorting by oldest—I will update the instructions. I think people are voting for each thing that they agree is a good idea, even if it is not sufficient. If you think AI should’ve been paused 5 years ago, I think you would agree with “Shut down AI for decades” but you could also agree with other things like pausing if mass unemployment.
This is a critique of your poll formulation methodology, not really a request for clarification. Your answer options are ambiguous or don’t survive some salient framings/worldviews (remain centrally meaningful/answerable there without clarification). This probably explains some of the downvoting.
(There is also a technical issue that’s not on you, but worth noting, where with so many options as comments, LW software issues a warning for mass-voting as a result of taking part in your poll.)
Good point about sorting by oldest—I will update the instructions.
That was a point made by Søren Elverlin, not by me.
More egregiously, do I agree with “Pause AI if there is mass unemployment” if I think AI should’ve been Paused 5 years ago? Similarly for “Responsible scaling policy or similar” that litigates precisely how many centimeters from the edge of a cliff you need to stop (or maybe to start wearing a helmet, so that you can say that now you don’t need to stop since you are being responsible). Like, it’s better if those things at least are done, but it’s not so good that those are the things that are done.
Good point about sorting by oldest—I will update the instructions. I think people are voting for each thing that they agree is a good idea, even if it is not sufficient. If you think AI should’ve been paused 5 years ago, I think you would agree with “Shut down AI for decades” but you could also agree with other things like pausing if mass unemployment.
This is a critique of your poll formulation methodology, not really a request for clarification. Your answer options are ambiguous or don’t survive some salient framings/worldviews (remain centrally meaningful/answerable there without clarification). This probably explains some of the downvoting.
(There is also a technical issue that’s not on you, but worth noting, where with so many options as comments, LW software issues a warning for mass-voting as a result of taking part in your poll.)
That was a point made by Søren Elverlin, not by me.