Applause Lights

You have, I think, come upon the essence of modern political speeches.

The democracy booster probably meant that people with little political power should not be ignored. And that's not an empty statement; people with little political power are ignored all the time.

Alas, for most audiences I think you would find no one laughing even after an entire applause light speech.

I remember at the AGIRI workshop in DC last year, Alexei Samsonovich talked about sorting a list of English words along two dimensions - "valence" and "arousal," indicating some component of the emotional response which words evoke.

Maybe audiences respond to speeches by summing the emotion vectors of each word in the speech, rather than parsing sentences.

Quick test: who here is excited by the prospects of anthropic quantum computing?

Such speech could theoretically perform "bringing to attention" function. Chunks of "bringing to attention" are equivalent to any kind of knowledge, it's just an inefficient form, and abnormality of that speech in its utter inefficiency, not lack of content. People can bear such talk as similar inefficiency can be present in other talks in different form. Inefficiency makes it much simpler to obfuscate eluding certain topics.

I'm pretty sure that many people and organizations routinely DO argue that "we shouldn't balance the risks and opportunities of X". In ethics, deontological systems claim this. In policy, environmentalists are the first example that spring to mind, though they have been getting substantially better in the last few years. Radical pacifists like Gandhi have often been praised for asserting that people should not balance the risks and opportunities of war. More broadly, display of this attitude seems to me to be necessary for anyone who is attempting to portray that they are extraordinarily "virtuous" as virtue is normally understood, at least in our broadly Christian derived civilization. I actually think that it would be a good idea to try presenting all applause lights, but I think that it has been done. "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense" claims in the appendix that such a speech has been written and presented to applause on a variety of topics. It seems to me though that the speech you were proposing above was actually an endorsement of a reasonable set of meta-policies which are in fact generally not engaged in, and was thus substantive, not empty, so I'm not sure it counts.

David's comment that we shouldn't ignore people with little political power is a bit problematic. People who are not ignored in a political process have by definition some political power; whoever is ignored lacks power. So the meaning becomes "people who are ignored are ignored all the time". The only way to handle it is to never ignore anybody on anything. So please tell me your views on whether Solna muncipality in Sweden should spend more money on the stairs above the station, or a traffic light - otherwise the decision will not be fully democratic.

I wonder if the sensitivity for applause lights is different in different cultures. When I lectured in Madrid I found mine and several friend's speeches fall relatively flat, despite being our normally successful "standard speeches". But a few others got roaring responses at the applause lights - we were simply not turning them on brighly enough. The reward of a roaring applause is of course enough to bias a speaker to start pouring on more applause lights.

Hmm, was my use of "bias" above just an applause light for Overcoming Bias?

Eliezer's nothing-but-applause-lights speech sounds strangely like every State of the Union address I've ever heard...

See also Trust Cues.

Rather than just "applause lights", sloganeering often is a cue to group-identification. Cf. postmodern text generators.

This post reminds me of George Orwell's essay "Politics and The English Language".

"The democracy booster probably meant that people with little political power should not be ignored. And that's not an empty statement; people with little political power are ignored all the time."

But isn't it precisely the people with little political power who can most safely be ignored?

Curiously Eliezer, I feel like applauding. Good post.

Eliezer,

Thank you for the quotation:

"We believe that we are already living in a democracy, although some factors are still missing, such as the expression of the people's will"

I hope someone can tell us who said it.

John

It might not convey information, but I bet you could get thunderous applause. Often, the latter outweighs the former when it comes t the goals of a speech.

link to 1981 Time magazine interview with the president of Argentina - source of Eliezer's quote about democracy absent the people's will.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954853,00.html?promoid=googlep

The substance of a democracy is the specific mechanism that resolves policy conflicts. ... What does it mean to call for a "democratic" solution if you don't have a conflict-resolution mechanism in mind?

This is not a particularly well-defined notion; clearly it does not resonate with you, who want a stricter definition. But it is hardly a meaningless notion, either. It is not an applause sign.

It is also, I think, a much more useful concept than you seem to have in mind. You are hung up on specifics: "the resolution process can be a direct majority vote, or an elected legislature, or even a voter-sensitive behavior of an AI, but it has to be something." Yes, in any actual project for developing AI, it would have to be something, and something specific. But specifically which of these methods (or an infinity of other specific implementations of "democracy") did not matter to the speaker you refer to.

I know where your quote came from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954853,00.html?promoid

It's from "President Roberto Eduardo Viola, formerly Argentina's army commander in chief".

It's an answer to the first question in the interview:

"Q. How soon do you expect Argentina to be returned to democratic government?

A. We believe we are already within a democratic system. Some factors are still missing, like the expression of the people's will, but nevertheless we still think we are within a democracy. We say so because we believe these two fundamental values of democracy, freedom and justice, are in force in our country. There are, it is true, several conditioning aspects as regards political or union activity, but individual freedom is nowhere infringed in an outstanding manner."

BTW, I googled it. Apparently my Google-fu is better than yours ;) (But I do applaud your excellent memory, or ele I wouldn't be able to find it).

And keep up with the great posts. I'm a daly reader of this blog.

• Miguel

[rhetorical pose] We shouldn't balance the risks and opportunities of AI. Enthusiasts for AI are biased. They under estimate the difficulties. They would not be so enthusiastic if they grasped how disappointing progress is likely to be. Detractors of AI are also biased. They under estimate the difficulties too. You will have a hard time convincing them of the difficulties, because you would be trying to pursuade them that they had been frightened of shadows.

So there are few opportunities which are likely to be altogether lost if we hang back through unnecessary fear. [/rhetorical]

Well, I happen to believe the two paragraphs above, but distinct from the question of whether I am right or not is the question of whether the phrase "We need to balance the risks and opportunities of AI." means something or whether it is merely an applause light.

I think it is trivially true that we need to balance the actual risks and actual opportunities of AI. There is room for disagreement about whether we need to balance the perceived risks and perceived opportunities. If perceptions are accurate we should, but there is scope to say, for example, that the common perception is wrong and a rogue AI will in fact be quite stupid and easily unplugged. This opens the way to a decoding of language in which

o We need to balance the risks and opportunities of AI.

is the position that we are assessing the risks and opportunities correctly and

o We shouldn't balance the risks and opportunities of AI.

is the position that we are assessing the risks and opportunities incorrectly and should follow a different path from that indicated by our inaccurate assessments. Such a position needs fleshing out with a rival account of the risks and opportunities.

One question that I dwell on is "how do intelligent and well-intention persons fall to quarrelling?". The idea of an Applause Light is illuminating, but I think it is also quite tangled. There is the ambiguity between whether a phrase is an Applause Light or a Policy Proposal. I suspect that the core problem is that it is awfully tempting to exploit this ambiguity rhetorically, deliberating coding ones policy proposals in language that also functions as an Applause Light so that they come across as obviously correct.

The fun starts when one does this subconsciously and some-one else thinks it is deliberate and takes offence. Once this happens there is little chance of discovering the actual disaggreement (which might be about the accuracy of risk assessments) for the conversation will be derailed into meta-conversations about empty phrases and rhetoric.

That was kinda hilarious. I like your reversal test to detect content-free tautologies. Since I am working right now on a piece of AI-political-fiction (involving voting rights for artificial agents and questions that raises), I was thrown for a moment, but then tuned in to what YOU were talking about.

The 'Yes, Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister' series is full of extended pieces of such content-free dialog.

More seriously though, this is a bit of a strawman attack on the word 'democracy' being used as decoration/group dynamics cueing. You kinda blind-sided this guy, and I suspect he'd have a better answer if he had time to think. There is SOME content even to such a woolly-headed sentiment. Any large group (including large research teams) has conflict, and there is a spectrum of conflict resolution ranging from dictatorial imposition to democracy through to consensus.

Whether or not the formal scaffolding is present, an activity as complex as research CANNOT work unless the conflict resolution mechanisms are closer to the democracy/consensus end of the spectrum. Dictators can whip people's muscles into obedience, maybe even their lower-end skills ("do this arithmetic or DIE!"), but when you want to engage the creativity of a gang of PhDs, it is not going to work until there is a mechanism for their dissent to be heard and addressed. This means making the group itself representative (the 'multinational' part) automatically brings in the spirit if not the form of democratic discourses. So yes, if there are autocentric cultural biases today's AI researchers bring to the game, making the funding and execution multinational would help. Having worked on AI research as an intern in India 12 years ago, and working today in related fields here in the US, I can't say I see any such biases in this particular field, but perhaps in other fields, making up multinational, internationally-funded research teams would actually help.

On the flip side, you can have all the mechanisms and still allow dictatorial intent to prevail. My modest take on ruining democratic meetings run on Robert's Rules:

The 15 laws of Meeting Power

C'mon, Eliezar, be fair: identify who the speaker was that you "probed" in this way, so that people can find the recordings of the talk and exchange at singinst.org to decide for themselves how it went.

As you have it above, aside from the paraphrasing, you omit a couple of important parts of my replies. With regards to the Reason/Hollywood comparison, I go on to say:

"That is, they're both caricatures, and neither one is terribly plausible or complete. There would be some critical benefits to the messy process of the first scenario, and some important drawbacks to the second."

With regards to the "I don't know," I then say:

"This is a point I've tried to make a couple of times here: this is not a solved problem, but it's an important problem, and we need to figure out how to address it."

I certainly did not talk about democracy with any intent of it serving as "applause lights" for my talk -- in fact, given the audience, I expected a semi-hostile response, given my argument against the kind of "rebel nerd" heroism self-image a lot of the AGI community seems to have.

BTW, if anyone wants to go to singinst.org and download the audio, you'll note that the actual event did not occur the exact way I remembered it, which should surprise no one here who knows anything about human memory. In particular, Cascio spontaneously provided the Genome Project example, rather than needing to be asked for it.

Generally, the reason I avoid identifying the characters in my examples is that it feels to me like I'm dumping all the sins of humankind upon their undeserving heads - I'm presenting one error, out of context, as exemplar for all the errors of this kind that have ever been committed, and showing none of the good qualities of the speaker - it would be like caricaturing them, if I called them by name.

That said, the reason why I picked this example is that, in fact, I was thinking of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" while writing this post. And as Orwell said:

In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.

If you simply issue a call for "democracy", why, no one can disagree with that - it would be like disagreeing with a call for apple pie. As soon as you propose a specific mechanism of democracy, whether it is Congress passing a law, or an AI polling people by phone, or government funding of a large research project whose final authority belongs to an appointed committee of eminent scientists, et cetera, people can disagree with that, because they can actually visualize the probable consequences.

So there is a tremendous motive to avoid criticism, to keep to the safely vague areas where people will applaud you, and not to make the concrete proposals where people might - gasp! - disagree.

Now I do not accuse you too much of this, because you did say "Genome Project" when challenged instead of squirting out an immense cloud of ink. But it is why I challenged you to define "democracy". I think that the real value in these discussions comes from people willing to make concrete proposals and expose themselves to criticism.

Hum.

When I hear the sort of thing you would call "applause lights", I don't always think of that as an obvious fact that everyone in their right mind would agree on. Rather, I get the impression the speaker is implying that someone they strongly disagree with does believe this obvious fact is not true, or that this ridiculous notion is.

If for example I hear someone say "we shouldn't be hugging criminals, we should be locking them up", I interpret that as a very one-sided opposition to a grossly misrepresented opponent who goes a bit easier on convicts. Of course this person wouldn't literally believe the reverse that "we should be hugging criminals instead of locking them up", but she might believe something that a bigot could paraphrase as such with a straight face.

I think this is also the reason why the speaker's supporters applaud to statements like that - it implies the issue is very simple and clear-cut, only one side (ours) is remotely sensible, and you'd have to be insane to disagree. One-sidedness feels good. Very blatant one-sidedness feels even better.

(Excuse me if this has been said already.)

(Hi everyone; this is my first time posting here.)

If someone delivered that 100%-applause-light paragraph to me in a speech, my first impulse would be to interpret it as an honest attempt to remind the audience of obvious but not necessarily currently-in-context ideas. For example, this statement from the middle:

"To achieve these goals, we must plan wisely and rationally. We should not act in fear and panic, or give in to technophobia; but neither should we act in blind enthusiasm."

Taken literally as a set of assertions, this really is quite empty of novel or unexpected content. However, directed at an audience of humans, aware of but still vulnerable to cognitive bias, the statement above implies another statement which is more useful: "We should be careful to not act like who, despite intending not to, panicked rather than thinking productively. We should also be careful to not act like whose enthusiasm overwhelmed their necessary sense of caution, even though they knew the value of that caution."

People who agree with the part of the 1st virtue that says "A burning itch to know is higher than a solemn vow to pursue truth" may still sometimes need to be reminded to check themselves and make sure they're doing the former rather than the latter.

This sounds similar to the idea of a "motherhood statement" as defined here.

Oy, now that you've said it, I hear speeches like that at the end all the time. Whole discussion between opposing sides even. Perhaps that's why I haven't been able to stand cable news for a while now?

When I first read this, I imagined a favorite politician (I won't mention who) giving this mock speech.

To my embarrassment, I found myself nodding in completely genuine enthusiasm. This guy clearly knows what he's talking about!

(This in turn made me consider just how much of this politician's speeches was similarly composed. I came to the conclusion that quite a significant amount of it was)

...Nobody ever told me cognitive bias would be this annoying!

"Applause Light" is a wonderful name for that tactic; it's funny, catchy, and makes the problem with that tactic intuitively obvious. That term should be further proliferated throughout the internet if it hasn't already been. Adding that meme to the average internet goer's repertoire could have wonderful side-effects on the support decisions of people in meat space everywhere.

That applause-light speech at the end just needs some variation, and I'm pretty sure it would fly. I'd replace about half of the "we should" with something else, like "it is important that we", and "it would be dangerous to neglect" and so on, because right now it's so repetitive that surely a lot of people would notice and realize what's being done.

Or maybe i'm yet again overestimating my fellow human beings, as past experience says I am prone to do...

I am tempted to give a talk sometime that consists of nothing but applause lights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxMqSdgB-uA (appropriately titled "Unthink").

You got him on nice Socratic question. Well, a good question seeks good idea and eliminate inane idea. Nice

There might be one another case: in casual conversation, something that looks like an applause light, could be just expression of recent insights of a particular person on the subject. Like, he just yesterday deduced (based on some fragments of rational texts on the web) that we should balance risks and opportunities of this. Or, maybe the audience level on the subject is so low that even the applause-like statements do convey some information.

"Let's do everything right."

Yep. Standard political speech.

I don't think these statements are entirely vacuous. Even when their content is little more than a tautology, their actual meaning is something else entirely, at least in politics; they represent that the speaker is aware of the jargon, willing to use it, essentially moderate/"pragmatic" and prone to maintaining the status quo.

I couldn't resist adding another link as an example of a speech that seems to consist almost entirely of applause lights. This one is vintage Peter Sellers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBtGuu9BVE

Applause Lights also have more sinister, dark artsy application: they can be used to bait people into agreeing with seemingly trivial propositions, which nevertheless cause the target to modify their self image, rendering them more likely to agree with less trivial propositions in the future. For example, Cialdini's Influence reports on a study that found that households that had been visited by a volunteer collecting signatures in favor of the vague statement "keep California beautiful" (without ever specifying how this was to be accomplished) were much more likely to agree to prominently display a large, ugly sign reading "prevent drunk driving" on their yards than households that hadn't been so visited.

can convey new information to a bounded rationalist

Why limit it to bounded rationalists?

How would different interest groups resolve their conflicts in a structure like the Human Genome Project?

Oh, my, the unintentional humor of that speaker's comment. There's an entire book written on how groups resolved their conflicts in the Human Genome Project, The Genome War: They didn't. The outcome was a horrific case study of how science really "works" today.

You'll often see feminists on the Internet pointing out how just about everyone seems to be in favor of "gender equality" and yet hardly anyone of either gender self-identifies as feminist anymore, even though gender equality is what feminism claims to be all about.

This article explains that disconnect. "Equality" is an applause light. It's something we can all agree is great in the abstract, but as soon as someone starts talking specifics, the applause thins and we all go back to being polarized again because everyone's idea of what equality, especially social and economic equality, actually entails is different.

"I am here to propose to you today that we need to balance the risks and opportunities of advanced Artificial Intelligence..."

Seven years later, this open letter was signed by leaders of the field. It's amusing how similar it is to the above speech, especially considering how it actually marked a major milestone in the advancement of the field of AI safety.

Then what kind of democratic process did you have in mind?

The speaker replied:

Something like the Human Genome Project—that was an internationally sponsored research project.

I asked:

How would different interest groups resolve their conflicts in a structure like the Human Genome Project?

And the speaker said:

I don't know.

In this old post, Eliezer is being insufficiently charitable and not steelmanning.

It is possible that I know that X can do A, but I don't know how X can do A. "Look at X and do A similarly to that" may be a reasonable response when I am asked how to do A (or when I am told that A is just impossible). It may fail in some cases (such as when I am incorrect in my assumption that X and the current situation are similar enough), but it isn't devoid of content to say that, and is more than an applause light.

Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_signifier

Hi, i made this german translation if anyone is interested:

Applaus-Lichter

Pseudo-Überzeugungen

Von Eliezer_Yudkowsky

11. September 2007

Auf dem Singularity Summit 2007 rief einer der Redner zu einer demokratischen, multinationalen Entwicklung der KI auf. Also trat ich ans Mikrofon und fragte:

Angenommen, eine Gruppe demokratischer Republiken bildet ein Konsortium zur Entwicklung der KI, und während des Prozesses gibt es viel politisches Taktieren - einige Interessengruppen haben einen ungewöhnlich großen Einfluss, andere werden über den Tisch gezogen - mit anderen Worten, das Ergebnis sieht aus wie die Produkte moderner Demokratien. Alternatives Szenario: Angenommen, eine Gruppe von Rebellen-Nerds entwickelt eine KI in ihrem Keller und weist der KI an, mit jedem auf der Welt eine Umfrage zu machen (dafür bekommt jeder der noch keines hat ein Mobiltelefon) - und dann das zu machen, was die Mehrheit wünscht. Welche von diesen Optionen ist Ihrer Meinung nach "demokratischer", und würden Sie sich bei beiden sicher fühlen?

Ich wollte herausfinden, ob er an die pragmatische Angemessenheit des demokratischen politischen Prozesses glaubte oder ob er an die moralische Rechtmäßigkeit der Stimmabgabe glaubte. Der Sprecher antwortete:

Das erste Szenario klingt wie ein Leitartikel im Reason-Magazin und das zweite klingt wie ein Hollywood-Plot.

Verwirrt fragte ich:

An was für einen demokratischen Prozess haben Sie gedacht?

Der Sprecher antwortete:

So etwas wie das Human Genome Project - das war ein international gesponsertes Forschungsprojekt.

Ich habe gefragt:

Wie würden verschiedene Interessengruppen ihre Konflikte in einer Struktur wie dem Human Genome Project lösen?

Und der Sprecher sagte:

Ich weiß es nicht.

Dieser Austausch erinnert mich an ein Zitat (das ich bei Google nicht gefunden habe, aber das von Jeff Gray und Miguel gefunden wurde) von irgendeinem Diktator, der gefragt wurde, ob er beabsichtige, seinen Bananen-Republik in Richtung Demokratie zu bewegen:

Wir glauben, dass wir uns bereits in einem demokratischen System befinden. Einige Faktoren fehlen noch, wie die freie Meinungsäußerung.

Der Kern einer Demokratie ist der spezifische Mechanismus, der politische Konflikte löst. Wenn alle Gruppen die gleiche bevorzugte Politik hätten, wäre keine Demokratie erforderlich - wir würden automatisch zusammenarbeiten. Der Konfliktlösungsprozess kann eine direkte Stimmenmehrheit oder eine gewählte Legislative oder sogar ein wählersensitives Verhalten einer KI sein, aber es muss jedoch etwas sein. Was bedeutet es, eine "demokratische" Lösung zu fordern, wenn Sie keinen Konfliktlösungsmechanismus im Sinn haben?

Ich denke, es bedeutet, dass das Wort "Demokratie" gesagt wurde, und dass das Publikum Beifall klatschen soll. Es ist nicht so sehr eine aussagekräftige Aussage, als ein Äquivalent des "Applause" -Lichts, das einem Studiopublikum sagt, wann es klatschen soll.

Dieser Fall ist nur insofern bemerkenswert, als dass ich das Applaus-Licht mit einem politischen Vorschlag verwechselt habe, mit anschließender allgemeiner Peinlichkeit. Die meisten Applaus-Lichter sind offensichtlicher und können durch einen einfachen Umkehrtest erkannt werden. Angenommen, jemand sagt:

Wir müssen die Risiken und Chancen der KI ausbalancieren.

Wenn Sie diese Aussage umkehren, erhalten Sie:

Wir sollten die Risiken und Chancen der KI nicht ausbalancieren.

Da die Umkehrung abnormal klingt, ist die nicht umgekehrte Aussage wahrscheinlich normal, was bedeutet, dass keine neuen Informationen übermittelt werden. Es gibt viele legitime Gründe, um einen Satz auszusprechen, der isoliert nicht aussagekräftig wäre. "Wir müssen die Risiken und Chancen der KI ausbalancieren" kann ein Diskussionsthema einführen; es kann die Bedeutung eines spezifischen Vorschlags für die Abwägung betonen; es kann einen unausgewogenen Vorschlag kritisieren. Das Verknüpfen mit einer normalen Behauptung kann einem eingeschränkten Rationalisten neue Informationen vermitteln - die Verbindung selbst ist möglicherweise nicht offensichtlich. Wenn aber keine Besonderheiten folgen, ist der Satz wahrscheinlich ein Applaus-Licht.

Ich bin versucht, einmal einen Vortrag zu halten, der nur aus Applaus-Lichtern besteht, und zu sehen, wie lange es dauert, bis das Publikum anfängt zu lachen:

Ich möchte Ihnen heute vorschlagen, die Risiken und Chancen fortschrittlicher künstlicher Intelligenz in Einklang zu bringen. Wir sollten die Risiken vermeiden und, soweit möglich, die Chancen wahrnehmen. Wir sollten uns nicht unnötig mit unnötigen Gefahren auseinandersetzen. Um diese Ziele zu erreichen, müssen wir vernünftig und rational planen. Wir sollten nicht in Furcht und Panik handeln oder der Technophobie nachgeben. aber wir sollten auch nicht mit blinder Begeisterung handeln. Wir sollten die Interessen aller Parteien respektieren, die an der Singularität beteiligt sind. Wir müssen sicherstellen, dass die Vorteile fortschrittlicher Technologien so vielen Menschen wie möglich zur Verfügung stehen, anstatt auf einige beschränkt zu sein. Wir müssen versuchen, gewalttätige Konflikte mit diesen Technologien so weit wie möglich zu vermeiden. und wir müssen verhindern, dass massive zerstörerische Fähigkeiten in die Hände von Individuen fallen. Wir sollten diese Fragen vorher durchdenken, nicht danach, es ist zu spät, um etwas dagegen zu unternehmen ...

I am tempted to give a talk sometime that consists of nothing but applause lights, and see how long it takes for the audience to start laughing:

I'm reminded of your Tom Riddle a bit heh.

I think "a speech that consists of nothing but applause lights" pretty much applies to 99% of political discourse these days and instead being amused at how long it takes the audience to realize you'd be embittered at how seriously everyone took the whole exercise. Maybe I have some bias to sort out but I think the actual content of what is being said often matters very little to most people, as long as you hit the right buzzwords and look convincing/confident.

I am here to propose to you today that we should not balance the risks and opportunities of advanced artificial intelligence. We should welcome the risks and remain blind to opportunities. We should needlessly confront entirely unnecessary dangers. To achieve these goals, we must plan stupidly and irrationally. We should act in fear and panic, and give in to technophobia; alternatively, we should act in blind enthusiasm. We should only respect the interests of some parties with a stake in the Singularity. We must try to ensure that the benefits of advanced technologies remain restricted to a small number of people, rather than accrue to as many individuals as possible. We must encourage, even if it's impossible, violent conflicts using these technologies; and we must see that the massive destructive capability falls into the hands of individuals. We should think through these issues later, when it is too late to do anything about them . . .

I like those reversals tests. They are not only useful, but also quite hilarious.

"do whatever the majority says" is not democracy.

True democracy finds the solution that maximizes the utility of all the voters, not maximizing the utility of half while completely ignoring the other half.

I think it's possible that there's another purpose to these kinds of statements. When someone says, "We must acknowledge the potential risks and benefits of AGI," they're signalling - at least in principle - that they're aware that there *are* both risks and benefits to AGI.

So its purpose is in some cases as a signal to listeners that the speaker has avoided ideological possession at least long enough to acknowledge the existence of factors on more than one side of an argument.

It's hard to judge this particular case without context, but such sentences can be valid if they convey a general direction a person wants something to move on in a situation where they can't or shouldn't be overspecific, for example if they don't know much about the specific subject, or if they want to remain on topic during a talk about a particular issue.

For example, I could say "it's time someone developed a machine that is able to fetch things around the house and bring them to us". It doesn't mean I know anything about engineering or about how this machine would operate, just that I think it would be a good thing.

In the same way, the speaker might just have wanted to say that they believe that it would be good if AI development went in two directions: 1-Multinational 2-Democratic. That did not involve them claiming they were an expert in developing democratic frameworks for international decision making. He was just expressing that it should move in the direction of those ideals, maybe because he liked the outcome of other projects who shared them, like the Human Genome Project.

Back in the day I would've agreed and thought that indeed the last paragraph was prime example of political speech with nothing inside it. After recent years in politics, I wouldn't be suprised to see leaders in certain countries make a very different speech about AI. So perhaps it is indeed useful to have these kinds of speeches, just to signal that there is still reason in this world.

When you get down to it, all politics is about conflict resolution. That's not particular to democracy.

Democracy can be viewed as a government in which policy decisions are intended to reflect the will of the people, as opposed to, for example, the will of the nobility, or a single ruler. When people say that a set of decisions should be made democratically, they mean that the conflict resolution mechanism should be such that the decisions made are reflective of the will of the people.

I think the speaker advocating for a democratic, multinational push for AGI was saying A. that we need to push for AGI and B. that if we do so, our decisions about it should reflect the will of the people. This leaves the particular conflict resolution mechanism an open question but constrains it to the set of mechanisms that are intended to reflect the will of the people.

It's not particularly surprising that this speaker wouldn't have an opinion on which democratic conflict resolution mechanism to use. I imagine that sort of thing is usually left to political scientists.

The speaker's statement is also non-obvious. It may be clear that such a push should be democratic, but it's not at all clear that it would be. The speaker is advocating for making sure that the push happens, and that it's democratic, as opposed to pushing for the AGI movement whilst leaving the conflict resolution entirely up to others who may not have the interests of the people at heart.

There are many different implementations of democracy, but they are all very different from oligarchies. It is meaningful to say that a set of decisions should be made democratically. Your criticism of this speaker is analogous to someone saying, "We should believe true things, not things that make us feel good," and you responding, "You'd better know how to find true beliefs or you're just virtue signaling." It is both poor manners and invalid criticism.

That is not to say that I disagree with your overall point; I just don't think this person's statement was an example of it. Perhaps, if I'd been there, there would have been some noncommunicable social cues that would lead me to your conclusion, but the text alone does not.

Yes, I would do a modern democracy, because of one fact that is shown in stark relief by the Ukraine War: Democracy isn't perfect, but is usually immune to the unilateralist's curse and is better at governance than any other system we've tried.

To quote Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other systems we've tried.

Claude Opus is, unsurprisingly, excellent at writing these: 

'My fellow citizens, we are gathered here today to address the critical issue of ensuring the stability and fairness of our financial markets. It is essential that we implement prudent regulations to protect consumers, investors, and indeed our entire economy. We must strive to prevent the reckless speculation and unchecked greed that can lead to devastating financial crises.

At the same time, we should not unnecessarily stifle the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation that are the engines of economic growth. A balanced, common-sense approach to financial regulation is required. We must bring all stakeholders to the table - industry, government, and citizen groups - to collaboratively develop a regulatory framework that serves the interests of all.

Transparency and accountability must be the watchwords as we go forward. Financial markets work best when participants have confidence that the system is fair and abuses will not be tolerated. Regulators should be empowered to shine a bright light into the darker corners of the financial world.

Our goal must be a financial system that is resilient in the face of shocks, yet flexible enough to power economic growth and shared prosperity for all. This is no easy task, but it is a challenge we must meet. The decisions we make today will shape our economy for generations to come. Let us seize this moment and build a sounder foundation for our financial future.'