Money isn’t magic. It’s nothing more than the slack in the system of exchange. You have to start from some idea of what the work is that needs to happen. That seems to me to be lacking. Are there any other proposals on the table against doom but “shut it all down”?
Suppose you had literally no ideas at all how to counter drone swarms, and you were really bad at judging other people’s ideas for countering drone swarms. In that case, would you, upon discovering that your countries adversaries developed drone swarms, (making your current tanks and ships obsolete), decide to give up on military spending, and cut military spending by 100 times?
Please say you would or explain why not.
My opinion is that you can’t give up (i.e. admit there is a big problem but spend extremely little on it) until you fully understood the nature of the problem with certainty.
Money isn’t magic, but it determines the number of smart people working on the problem. If I was a misaligned superintelligence, I would be pretty scared of a greater amount of human intelligence working to stop me from being born in the first place. They get only one try, but they might actually stumble across something that works.
Suppose you had literally no ideas at all how to counter drone swarms, and you were really bad at judging other people’s ideas for countering drone swarms.
In that case, I would be unqualified to do anything, and I would be wondering how I got into a position where people were asking me for advice. If I couldn’t pass the buck to someone competent, I’d look for competent people, get their recommendations, try as best I could to judge them, and turn on the money tap accordingly. But I can’t wave a magic wand, and where there was a pile of money there is now a pile of anti-drone technology.
If everyone else is also unqualified because the problem is so new, and every defence they experimented with got obliterated by drone swarms, then you would agree they should just give up, and admit military risk remains a big problem but spend far less on it, right?
So if no one else knew how to counter drone swarms, and every defence they experimented with got obliterated by drone swarms,
…then by hypothesis, you’re screwed. But you’re making up this scenario, and this is where you’ve brought the imaginary protagonists to. You’re denying them a solution, while insisting they should spend money on a solution.
I think just because every defence they experimented with got obliterated by drone swarms, doesn’t mean they should stop trying, because they might figure out something new in the future.
It’s a natural part of life to work on a problem without any idea what the solution will be like. The first people who studied biology had no clue what modern medicine would look like, but their work was still valuable.
Being unable to imagine a solution does not prove a solution doesn’t exist.
At some point there has to be concrete plans, yes without concrete plans nothing can happen.
I’m probably not the best person in the world to decide how the money should be spent, but one vague possibility is this:
Some money is spent on making AI labs implement risk reduction measures, such as simply making their network more secure against hacking, and implementing AI alignment ideas and AI control ideas which show promise but are expensive.
Some money is given to organizations and researchers who apply for grants. Universities might study AI alignment in the same way they study other arts and sciences.
Some money is spent on teaching people about AI risk so that they’re more educated? I guess this is really hard since the field itself disagrees on what is correct so it’s unclear what you teach.
Some money is saved in a form of war chest. E.g. if we get really close to superintelligence, or catch AI red handed, we might take drastic measures. We might have to immediately shut down AI, but if society is extremely dependent on it we might need to spend a lot of money helping people who feel uprooted by the shutdown. In order to make a shutdown less politically difficult, people who lose their jobs may be temporarily compensated, and businesses relying on AI may bought rather than forced into bankruptcy.
Probably not good enough for you :/ but I imagine someone else can come up with a better plan.
Money isn’t magic. It’s nothing more than the slack in the system of exchange. You have to start from some idea of what the work is that needs to happen. That seems to me to be lacking. Are there any other proposals on the table against doom but “shut it all down”?
Suppose you had literally no ideas at all how to counter drone swarms, and you were really bad at judging other people’s ideas for countering drone swarms. In that case, would you, upon discovering that your countries adversaries developed drone swarms, (making your current tanks and ships obsolete), decide to give up on military spending, and cut military spending by 100 times?
Please say you would or explain why not.
My opinion is that you can’t give up (i.e. admit there is a big problem but spend extremely little on it) until you fully understood the nature of the problem with certainty.
Money isn’t magic, but it determines the number of smart people working on the problem. If I was a misaligned superintelligence, I would be pretty scared of a greater amount of human intelligence working to stop me from being born in the first place. They get only one try, but they might actually stumble across something that works.
In that case, I would be unqualified to do anything, and I would be wondering how I got into a position where people were asking me for advice. If I couldn’t pass the buck to someone competent, I’d look for competent people, get their recommendations, try as best I could to judge them, and turn on the money tap accordingly. But I can’t wave a magic wand, and where there was a pile of money there is now a pile of anti-drone technology.
Neither can anyone in AI alignment.
If everyone else is also unqualified because the problem is so new, and every defence they experimented with got obliterated by drone swarms, then you would agree they should just give up, and admit military risk remains a big problem but spend far less on it, right?
…then by hypothesis, you’re screwed. But you’re making up this scenario, and this is where you’ve brought the imaginary protagonists to. You’re denying them a solution, while insisting they should spend money on a solution.
I think just because every defence they experimented with got obliterated by drone swarms, doesn’t mean they should stop trying, because they might figure out something new in the future.
It’s a natural part of life to work on a problem without any idea what the solution will be like. The first people who studied biology had no clue what modern medicine would look like, but their work was still valuable.
Being unable to imagine a solution does not prove a solution doesn’t exist.
Sure, never give up, die with dignity if it comes to that. None of that translates into a budget. Concrete plans translate into a budget.
At some point there has to be concrete plans, yes without concrete plans nothing can happen.
I’m probably not the best person in the world to decide how the money should be spent, but one vague possibility is this:
Some money is spent on making AI labs implement risk reduction measures, such as simply making their network more secure against hacking, and implementing AI alignment ideas and AI control ideas which show promise but are expensive.
Some money is given to organizations and researchers who apply for grants. Universities might study AI alignment in the same way they study other arts and sciences.
Some money is spent on teaching people about AI risk so that they’re more educated? I guess this is really hard since the field itself disagrees on what is correct so it’s unclear what you teach.
Some money is saved in a form of war chest. E.g. if we get really close to superintelligence, or catch AI red handed, we might take drastic measures. We might have to immediately shut down AI, but if society is extremely dependent on it we might need to spend a lot of money helping people who feel uprooted by the shutdown. In order to make a shutdown less politically difficult, people who lose their jobs may be temporarily compensated, and businesses relying on AI may bought rather than forced into bankruptcy.
Probably not good enough for you :/ but I imagine someone else can come up with a better plan.