My current perspective is that criticism of AGI labs is an under-incentivized public good. I suspect there’s a disproportionate amount of value that people could have by evaluating lab plans, publicly criticizing labs when they break commitments or make poor arguments, talking to journalists/policymakers about their concerns, etc.
Some quick thoughts:
Soft power– I think people underestimate the how strong the “soft power” of labs is, particularly in the Bay Area.
Jobs– A large fraction of people getting involved in AI safety are interested in the potential of working for a lab one day. There are some obvious reasons for this– lots of potential impact from being at the organizations literally building AGI, big salaries, lots of prestige, etc.
People (IMO correctly) perceive that if they acquire a reputation for being critical of labs, their plans, or their leadership, they will essentially sacrifice the ability to work at the labs.
So you get an equilibrium where the only people making (strong) criticisms of labs are those who have essentially chosen to forgo their potential of working there.
Money– The labs and Open Phil (which has been perceived, IMO correctly, as investing primarily into metastrategies that are aligned with lab interests) have an incredibly large share of the $$$ in the space. When funding became more limited, this became even more true, and I noticed a very tangible shift in the culture & discourse around labs + Open Phil
Status games//reputation– Groups who were more inclined to criticize labs and advocate for public or policymaker outreach were branded as “unilateralist”, “not serious”, and “untrustworthy” in core EA circles. In many cases, there were genuine doubts about these groups, but my impression is that these doubts got amplified/weaponized in cases where the groups were more openly critical of the labs.
Subjectivity of “good judgment”– There is a strong culture of people getting jobs/status for having “good judgment”. This is sensible insofar as we want people with good judgment (who wouldn’t?) but this often ends up being so subjective that it ends up leading to people being quite afraid to voice opinions that go against mainstream views and metastrategies (particularly those endorsed by labs + Open Phil).
Anecdote– Personally, I found my ability to evaluate and critique labs + mainstream metastrategies substantially improved when I spent more time around folks in London and DC (who were less closely tied to the labs). In fairness, I suspect that if I had lived in London or DC *first* and then moved to the Bay Area, it’s plausible I would’ve had a similar feeling but in the “reverse direction”.
With all this in mind, I find myself more deeply appreciating folks who have publicly and openly critiqued labs, even in situations where the cultural and economic incentives to do so were quite weak (relative to staying silent or saying generic positive things about labs).
Examples: Habryka, Rob Bensinger, CAIS, MIRI, Conjecture, and FLI. More recently, @Zach Stein-Perlman, and of course Jan Leike and Daniel K.
Noticing good stuff labs do, not just criticizing them, is often helpful. I wish you thought of this work more as “evaluation” than “criticism.”
It’s often important for evaluation to be quite truth-tracking. Criticism isn’t obviously good by default.
Edit:
3. I’m pretty sure OP likes good criticism of the labs; no comment on how OP is perceived. And I think I don’t understand your “good judgment” point. Feedback I’ve gotten on AI Lab Watch from senior AI safety people has been overwhelmingly positive, and of course there’s a selection effect in what I hear, but I’m quite sure most of them support such efforts.
4. Conjecture (not exclusively) has done things that frustrated me, including in dimensions like being “‘unilateralist,’ ‘not serious,’ and ‘untrustworthy.’” I think most criticism of Conjecture-related advocacy is legitimate and not just because people are opposed to criticizing labs.
5. I do agree on “soft power” and some of “jobs.” People often don’t criticize the labs publicly because they’re worried about negative effects on them, their org, or people associated with them.
Agreed— my main point here is that the marketplace of ideas undervalues criticism.
I think one perspective could be “we should all just aim to do objective truth-seeking”, and as stated I agree with it.
The main issue with that frame, imo, is that it’s very easy to forget that the epistemic environment can be tilted in favor of certain perspectives.
EG I think it can be useful for “objective truth-seeking efforts” to be aware of some of the culture/status games that underincentivize criticism of labs & amplify lab-friendly perspectives.
RE 3:
Good to hear that responses have been positive to lab watch. My impression is that this is a mix of: (a) lab watch doesn’t really threaten the interests of labs (especially Anthropic, which is currently winning & currently the favorite lab among senior AIS ppl), (b) the tides have been shifting somewhat and it is genuinely less taboo to criticize labs than a year ago, and (c) EAs respond more positively to criticism that feels more detailed/nuanced (look I have these 10 categories, let’s rate the labs on each dimension) than criticisms that are more about metastrategy (e.g., challenging the entire RSP frame or advocating for policymaker outreach).
RE 4: I haven’t heard anything about Conjecture that I’ve found particularly concerning. Would be interested in you clarifying (either here or via DM) what you’ve heard. (And clarification note that my original point was less “Conjecture hasn’t done anything wrong” and more “I suspect Conjecture will be more heavily scrutinized and examined and have a disproportionate amount of optimization pressure applied against it given its clear push for things that would hurt lab interests.”)
I think now is a good time for people at labs to seriously consider quitting & getting involved in government/policy efforts.
I don’t think everyone should leave labs (obviously). But I would probably hit a button that does something like “everyone at a lab governance team and many technical researchers spend at least 2 hours thinking/writing about alternative options they have & very seriously consider leaving.”
My impression is that lab governance is much less tractable (lab folks have already thought a lot more about AGI) and less promising (competitive pressures are dominating) than government-focused work.
I think governments still remain unsure about what to do, and there’s a lot of potential for folks like Daniel K to have a meaningful role in shaping policy, helping natsec folks understand specific threat models, and raising awareness about the specific kinds of things governments need to do in order to mitigate risks.
There may be specific opportunities at labs that are very high-impact, but I think if someone at a lab is “not really sure if what they’re doing is making a big difference”, I would probably hit a button that allocates them toward government work or government-focused comms work.
Written on a Slack channel in response to discussions about some folks leaving OpenAI.
I’d be worried about evaporative cooling. It seems that the net result of this would be that labs would be almost completely devoid of people earnest about safety.
I agree with you government pathways to impact are most plausible and until recently undervalued. I also agree with you there are weird competitive pressures at labs.
I do think evaporative cooling is a concern, especially if everyone (or a very significant amount) of people left. But I think on the margin more people should be leaving to work in govt.
I also suspect that a lot of systemic incentives will keep a greater-than-optimal proportion of safety-conscious people at labs as opposed to governments (labs pay more, labs are faster and have less bureaucracy, lab people are much more informed about AI, labs are more “cool/fun/fast-paced”, lots of govt jobs force you to move locations, etc.)
I also think it depends on the specific lab– EG in light of the recent OpenAI departures, I suspect there’s a stronger case for staying at OpenAI right now than for DeepMind or Anthropic.
I largely agree, but think given government hiring timelines, there’s no dishonor in staying at a lab doing moderately risk-reducing work until you get a hiring offer with an actual start date. This problem is less bad for the special hiring authorities being used for AI stuff oftentimes, but it’s still not ideal.
I’m interested in writing out somewhat detailed intelligence explosion scenarios. The goal would be to investigate what kinds of tools the US government would have to detect and intervene in the early stages of an intelligence explosion.
If you know anyone who has thought about these kinds of questions, whether from the AI community or from the US government perspective, please feel free to reach out via LessWrong.
My current perspective is that criticism of AGI labs is an under-incentivized public good. I suspect there’s a disproportionate amount of value that people could have by evaluating lab plans, publicly criticizing labs when they break commitments or make poor arguments, talking to journalists/policymakers about their concerns, etc.
Some quick thoughts:
Soft power– I think people underestimate the how strong the “soft power” of labs is, particularly in the Bay Area.
Jobs– A large fraction of people getting involved in AI safety are interested in the potential of working for a lab one day. There are some obvious reasons for this– lots of potential impact from being at the organizations literally building AGI, big salaries, lots of prestige, etc.
People (IMO correctly) perceive that if they acquire a reputation for being critical of labs, their plans, or their leadership, they will essentially sacrifice the ability to work at the labs.
So you get an equilibrium where the only people making (strong) criticisms of labs are those who have essentially chosen to forgo their potential of working there.
Money– The labs and Open Phil (which has been perceived, IMO correctly, as investing primarily into metastrategies that are aligned with lab interests) have an incredibly large share of the $$$ in the space. When funding became more limited, this became even more true, and I noticed a very tangible shift in the culture & discourse around labs + Open Phil
Status games//reputation– Groups who were more inclined to criticize labs and advocate for public or policymaker outreach were branded as “unilateralist”, “not serious”, and “untrustworthy” in core EA circles. In many cases, there were genuine doubts about these groups, but my impression is that these doubts got amplified/weaponized in cases where the groups were more openly critical of the labs.
Subjectivity of “good judgment”– There is a strong culture of people getting jobs/status for having “good judgment”. This is sensible insofar as we want people with good judgment (who wouldn’t?) but this often ends up being so subjective that it ends up leading to people being quite afraid to voice opinions that go against mainstream views and metastrategies (particularly those endorsed by labs + Open Phil).
Anecdote– Personally, I found my ability to evaluate and critique labs + mainstream metastrategies substantially improved when I spent more time around folks in London and DC (who were less closely tied to the labs). In fairness, I suspect that if I had lived in London or DC *first* and then moved to the Bay Area, it’s plausible I would’ve had a similar feeling but in the “reverse direction”.
With all this in mind, I find myself more deeply appreciating folks who have publicly and openly critiqued labs, even in situations where the cultural and economic incentives to do so were quite weak (relative to staying silent or saying generic positive things about labs).
Examples: Habryka, Rob Bensinger, CAIS, MIRI, Conjecture, and FLI. More recently, @Zach Stein-Perlman, and of course Jan Leike and Daniel K.
Sorry for brevity, I’m busy right now.
Noticing good stuff labs do, not just criticizing them, is often helpful. I wish you thought of this work more as “evaluation” than “criticism.”
It’s often important for evaluation to be quite truth-tracking. Criticism isn’t obviously good by default.
Edit:
3. I’m pretty sure OP likes good criticism of the labs; no comment on how OP is perceived. And I think I don’t understand your “good judgment” point. Feedback I’ve gotten on AI Lab Watch from senior AI safety people has been overwhelmingly positive, and of course there’s a selection effect in what I hear, but I’m quite sure most of them support such efforts.
4. Conjecture (not exclusively) has done things that frustrated me, including in dimensions like being “‘unilateralist,’ ‘not serious,’ and ‘untrustworthy.’” I think most criticism of Conjecture-related advocacy is legitimate and not just because people are opposed to criticizing labs.
5. I do agree on “soft power” and some of “jobs.” People often don’t criticize the labs publicly because they’re worried about negative effects on them, their org, or people associated with them.
RE 1& 2:
Agreed— my main point here is that the marketplace of ideas undervalues criticism.
I think one perspective could be “we should all just aim to do objective truth-seeking”, and as stated I agree with it.
The main issue with that frame, imo, is that it’s very easy to forget that the epistemic environment can be tilted in favor of certain perspectives.
EG I think it can be useful for “objective truth-seeking efforts” to be aware of some of the culture/status games that underincentivize criticism of labs & amplify lab-friendly perspectives.
RE 3:
Good to hear that responses have been positive to lab watch. My impression is that this is a mix of: (a) lab watch doesn’t really threaten the interests of labs (especially Anthropic, which is currently winning & currently the favorite lab among senior AIS ppl), (b) the tides have been shifting somewhat and it is genuinely less taboo to criticize labs than a year ago, and (c) EAs respond more positively to criticism that feels more detailed/nuanced (look I have these 10 categories, let’s rate the labs on each dimension) than criticisms that are more about metastrategy (e.g., challenging the entire RSP frame or advocating for policymaker outreach).
RE 4: I haven’t heard anything about Conjecture that I’ve found particularly concerning. Would be interested in you clarifying (either here or via DM) what you’ve heard. (And clarification note that my original point was less “Conjecture hasn’t done anything wrong” and more “I suspect Conjecture will be more heavily scrutinized and examined and have a disproportionate amount of optimization pressure applied against it given its clear push for things that would hurt lab interests.”)
I think now is a good time for people at labs to seriously consider quitting & getting involved in government/policy efforts.
I don’t think everyone should leave labs (obviously). But I would probably hit a button that does something like “everyone at a lab governance team and many technical researchers spend at least 2 hours thinking/writing about alternative options they have & very seriously consider leaving.”
My impression is that lab governance is much less tractable (lab folks have already thought a lot more about AGI) and less promising (competitive pressures are dominating) than government-focused work.
I think governments still remain unsure about what to do, and there’s a lot of potential for folks like Daniel K to have a meaningful role in shaping policy, helping natsec folks understand specific threat models, and raising awareness about the specific kinds of things governments need to do in order to mitigate risks.
There may be specific opportunities at labs that are very high-impact, but I think if someone at a lab is “not really sure if what they’re doing is making a big difference”, I would probably hit a button that allocates them toward government work or government-focused comms work.
Written on a Slack channel in response to discussions about some folks leaving OpenAI.
I’d be worried about evaporative cooling. It seems that the net result of this would be that labs would be almost completely devoid of people earnest about safety.
I agree with you government pathways to impact are most plausible and until recently undervalued. I also agree with you there are weird competitive pressures at labs.
I do think evaporative cooling is a concern, especially if everyone (or a very significant amount) of people left. But I think on the margin more people should be leaving to work in govt.
I also suspect that a lot of systemic incentives will keep a greater-than-optimal proportion of safety-conscious people at labs as opposed to governments (labs pay more, labs are faster and have less bureaucracy, lab people are much more informed about AI, labs are more “cool/fun/fast-paced”, lots of govt jobs force you to move locations, etc.)
I also think it depends on the specific lab– EG in light of the recent OpenAI departures, I suspect there’s a stronger case for staying at OpenAI right now than for DeepMind or Anthropic.
I largely agree, but think given government hiring timelines, there’s no dishonor in staying at a lab doing moderately risk-reducing work until you get a hiring offer with an actual start date. This problem is less bad for the special hiring authorities being used for AI stuff oftentimes, but it’s still not ideal.
I’m interested in writing out somewhat detailed intelligence explosion scenarios. The goal would be to investigate what kinds of tools the US government would have to detect and intervene in the early stages of an intelligence explosion.
If you know anyone who has thought about these kinds of questions, whether from the AI community or from the US government perspective, please feel free to reach out via LessWrong.