I am personally uncertain how hard stopping the race is. I have spent some time and money myself trying to promote IABIED, and I have also been trying to do direct alignment research, and when doing so I more often than not think explicitly in scenarios where the AI race does not stop.
Am I in group C? Am I a fake member of C?
I’d personally say I’d probably endorse C for someone who funds research/activism, and have personally basically acted on it.
I.e. I’d say it’s reasonable to say “stop the race ASAP”, and in another context say “the race might not be stopped, what projects would still maybe increase odds of survival/success conditional on a race?”
(IDK and I wouldn’t be the one to judge, and there doesn’t necessarily have to be one to judge.) I guess I’d be a bit more inclined to believe it of you? But it would take more evidence. For example, it would depend how your stances express themselves specifically in “political” contexts, i.e. in contexts where power is at stake (company governance, internal decision-making by an academic lab about allocating attentional resources, public opinion / discussion, funding decisions, hiring advice). And if you don’t have a voice in such contexts then you don’t count as much of a member of C. (Reminder that I’m talking about “camps”, not sets of individual people with propositional beliefs.)
It seems like you’re narrowing the claim, and I’m no longer sure I disagree with the point, if I’m interpreting it correctly now.
If you’re saying that they group doesn’t act differently in ways that are visible to you, sure—but the definition of the group is one that believes that two things are viable, and will sometimes support one side, and sometimes support the other. You could say it doesn’t matter for making individual decisions, because the people functionally are supporting one side or the other at a given time, but that’s different than saying they “are not actually working that way.”
Just to clarify:
I am personally uncertain how hard stopping the race is. I have spent some time and money myself trying to promote IABIED, and I have also been trying to do direct alignment research, and when doing so I more often than not think explicitly in scenarios where the AI race does not stop.
Am I in group C? Am I a fake member of C?
I’d personally say I’d probably endorse C for someone who funds research/activism, and have personally basically acted on it.
I.e. I’d say it’s reasonable to say “stop the race ASAP”, and in another context say “the race might not be stopped, what projects would still maybe increase odds of survival/success conditional on a race?”
(IDK and I wouldn’t be the one to judge, and there doesn’t necessarily have to be one to judge.) I guess I’d be a bit more inclined to believe it of you? But it would take more evidence. For example, it would depend how your stances express themselves specifically in “political” contexts, i.e. in contexts where power is at stake (company governance, internal decision-making by an academic lab about allocating attentional resources, public opinion / discussion, funding decisions, hiring advice). And if you don’t have a voice in such contexts then you don’t count as much of a member of C. (Reminder that I’m talking about “camps”, not sets of individual people with propositional beliefs.)
It seems like you’re narrowing the claim, and I’m no longer sure I disagree with the point, if I’m interpreting it correctly now.
If you’re saying that they group doesn’t act differently in ways that are visible to you, sure—but the definition of the group is one that believes that two things are viable, and will sometimes support one side, and sometimes support the other. You could say it doesn’t matter for making individual decisions, because the people functionally are supporting one side or the other at a given time, but that’s different than saying they “are not actually working that way.”