I don’t really believe that the reason warnings about AI are failing is because “you and all your children and grandchildren might die” doesn’t sound like a bad enough outcome to people.
S-risks are also even more speculative than risks of extinction, so it would be harder to justify a focus on them, while comparisons to hell make them even more likely to be dismissed as “this is just religious-style apocalypse thinking dressed in scientific language”.
The target audience needs to include the Trump administration so connections to religion might strengthen the case. Altman told the Senate that AI might kill everyone, and he was misinterpreted as talking about job loss. Something about human extinction causes powerful people to tune-out. The students at my college hate Elon, but are completely unaware that he went on Joe Rogan and said the tech is he helping to build might annihilate everyone. We see concerns about AI using up water getting more play than AI extinction risks.
On the other hand, many people seem to think of climate change as an extinction risk in a way that seems effective at motivating political action, e.g. with broad sympathies for movements like Extinction Rebellion.
AI water use has a significant advantage in getting attention in that it’s something clearly measurable that’s happening right now, and people had already been concerned about water shortages before this.
That is a reasonable point about extinction risks motivating some people on climate change. But Republicans, and given their control of the US government and likely short AI time horizons influencing them is a top priority, detest the Extinction Rebellion movement, and current environmental activism seems to anti-motivate them to act on climate change.
I don’t really believe that the reason warnings about AI are failing is because “you and all your children and grandchildren might die” doesn’t sound like a bad enough outcome to people.
S-risks are also even more speculative than risks of extinction, so it would be harder to justify a focus on them, while comparisons to hell make them even more likely to be dismissed as “this is just religious-style apocalypse thinking dressed in scientific language”.
The target audience needs to include the Trump administration so connections to religion might strengthen the case. Altman told the Senate that AI might kill everyone, and he was misinterpreted as talking about job loss. Something about human extinction causes powerful people to tune-out. The students at my college hate Elon, but are completely unaware that he went on Joe Rogan and said the tech is he helping to build might annihilate everyone. We see concerns about AI using up water getting more play than AI extinction risks.
On the other hand, many people seem to think of climate change as an extinction risk in a way that seems effective at motivating political action, e.g. with broad sympathies for movements like Extinction Rebellion.
AI water use has a significant advantage in getting attention in that it’s something clearly measurable that’s happening right now, and people had already been concerned about water shortages before this.
That is a reasonable point about extinction risks motivating some people on climate change. But Republicans, and given their control of the US government and likely short AI time horizons influencing them is a top priority, detest the Extinction Rebellion movement, and current environmental activism seems to anti-motivate them to act on climate change.