I strongly support the idea that we need consensus building before looking at specific paths forward—especially since the goal is clearly far more widely shared than the agreement about what strategy should be pursued.
For example, contra Dean Bell’s unfair strawman, this isn’t a back-door to insist on centralized AI development, or even necessarily a position that requires binding international law! We didn’t need laws to get the 1975 Alisomar moratorium on recombinant DNA research, or the email anti-abuse (SPF/DKIM/DMARC) voluntary technical standards, or the COSPAR guidelines that were embraced globally for planetary protection in space exploration, or press norms like not naming sexual assault victims—just strong consensus and moral suasion. Perhaps that’s not enough here, but it’s a discussion that should take place which first requires clear statement about what the overall goals should be.
This is also why I think the point about lab employees, and making safe pathways for them to speak out, is especially critical; current discussions about whistleblower protections don’t go far enough, and while group commitments (“if N others from my company”) are valuable, private speech on such topics should be even more clearly protected. And one reason for the inability to get consensus of lab employees is because there isn’t currently common knowledge within labs about how many of the people think that the goal is the wrong one, and the incentives for the labs to get investment are opposed to those that would allow employees to have options for voice or loyalty, instead of exit—which explains why, in general, only former employees have spoken out.
I strongly support the idea that we need consensus building before looking at specific paths forward—especially since the goal is clearly far more widely shared than the agreement about what strategy should be pursued.
For example, contra Dean Bell’s unfair strawman, this isn’t a back-door to insist on centralized AI development, or even necessarily a position that requires binding international law! We didn’t need laws to get the 1975 Alisomar moratorium on recombinant DNA research, or the email anti-abuse (SPF/DKIM/DMARC) voluntary technical standards, or the COSPAR guidelines that were embraced globally for planetary protection in space exploration, or press norms like not naming sexual assault victims—just strong consensus and moral suasion. Perhaps that’s not enough here, but it’s a discussion that should take place which first requires clear statement about what the overall goals should be.
This is also why I think the point about lab employees, and making safe pathways for them to speak out, is especially critical; current discussions about whistleblower protections don’t go far enough, and while group commitments (“if N others from my company”) are valuable, private speech on such topics should be even more clearly protected. And one reason for the inability to get consensus of lab employees is because there isn’t currently common knowledge within labs about how many of the people think that the goal is the wrong one, and the incentives for the labs to get investment are opposed to those that would allow employees to have options for voice or loyalty, instead of exit—which explains why, in general, only former employees have spoken out.