I like the first clause in the 2025 statement. If that were the whole thing, I would happily sign it. However having lived in California for decades, I’m pretty skeptical that direct democracy is a good way of making decisions, and would not endorse making a critical decision based on polls or a vote. (See also: brexit.)
The two necessary pieces are that it won’t doom us and that people want it to happen. Obviously we shouldn’t build it if it might doom us and I additionally think that we shouldn’t build it if people say that that would be bad according to their values. There are all kinds of valid reasons why people might want ASI to exist or not exist once existential risk is removed from the equation.
I don’t think this implies direct democracy, just some mechanism by which humanity at large has some collective say in whether ASI happens or not. “But does humanity even want this” has to at least be a consideration in some form.
I agree that the statement doesn’t require direct democracy but that seems like the most likely way to answer the question “do people want this”.
Here’s a brief list of things that were unpopular and broadly opposed that I nonetheless think were clearly good:
smallpox vaccine
seatbelts, and then seatbelt laws
cars
unleaded gasoline
microwaves (the oven, not the radiation)
Generally I feel like people sometimes oppose things that seem disruptive and can be swayed by demagogues. There’s a reason that representative democracy works better than direct democracy. (Though it has obvious issues as well.)
As another whole class of examples, I think people instinctively dislike free speech, immigration, and free markets. We have those things because elites took a strong stance based on better understanding of the world.
I support democractic input, and especially understanding people’s fears and being responsive to them. But I don’t support only doing things that people want to happen. If we had followed that rule for the past few centuries I think the world would be massively worse off.
I like the first clause in the 2025 statement. If that were the whole thing, I would happily sign it. However having lived in California for decades, I’m pretty skeptical that direct democracy is a good way of making decisions, and would not endorse making a critical decision based on polls or a vote. (See also: brexit.)
I did sign the 2023 statement.
The two necessary pieces are that it won’t doom us and that people want it to happen. Obviously we shouldn’t build it if it might doom us and I additionally think that we shouldn’t build it if people say that that would be bad according to their values. There are all kinds of valid reasons why people might want ASI to exist or not exist once existential risk is removed from the equation.
I don’t think this implies direct democracy, just some mechanism by which humanity at large has some collective say in whether ASI happens or not. “But does humanity even want this” has to at least be a consideration in some form.
I agree that the statement doesn’t require direct democracy but that seems like the most likely way to answer the question “do people want this”.
Here’s a brief list of things that were unpopular and broadly opposed that I nonetheless think were clearly good:
smallpox vaccine
seatbelts, and then seatbelt laws
cars
unleaded gasoline
microwaves (the oven, not the radiation)
Generally I feel like people sometimes oppose things that seem disruptive and can be swayed by demagogues. There’s a reason that representative democracy works better than direct democracy. (Though it has obvious issues as well.)
As another whole class of examples, I think people instinctively dislike free speech, immigration, and free markets. We have those things because elites took a strong stance based on better understanding of the world.
I support democractic input, and especially understanding people’s fears and being responsive to them. But I don’t support only doing things that people want to happen. If we had followed that rule for the past few centuries I think the world would be massively worse off.