Comment by alexbleakley on DanielFilan's Shortform Feed · 2024-10-04T20:58:01.095Z · LW · GW

I agree that if overhang is a relevant consideration for pauses, then it's also a relevant consideration for RSPs. My previous question was: Do you see the same people invoking overhang as an argument against pauses and also talking about RSPs as though they are not also impacted?

Maybe you're not saying that there are people taking that position, but rather that those who invoke overhang as an argument against pauses don't seem to be equally vocal against RSPs (if not necessarily in favor of them either). I can think of a couple of separate reasons this could be the case:

1. To the extent I think a pause is bad (for example, because of overhang), I might still be more motivated to prioritize arguing against "unconditional pause" than "maybe pause in the future", even if the argument could apply to both. This is especially true if I consider the prospect of an unconditional pause a legitimate, near-term threat. 
2. If I think a pause introduces a high, additional risk, and I think the base level of risk is low, it seems clear that I should not introduce that high risk. But if I get new evidence that there is an immediate, even-higher risk, which a pause could help mitigate, I should be willing to roll the dice on the pause, which now comes with a net reduction in risk.

(2) isn't a very reassuring position, but it does suggest that "immediate pause bad because overhang" and "RSPs good [in spite of overhang]" are logically compatible.

Comment by alexbleakley on DanielFilan's Shortform Feed · 2024-10-04T15:17:15.011Z · LW · GW

Are they the same people advocating for RSPs and also using compute/algorithm overhang as a primary argument against a pause? My understanding of the main argument in favor of RSPs over an immediate pause is:

1. Sure, we could continue to make some progress on safety if we paused other AI progress.
2. But:
   1. we could make even more progress on safety if we could work with more advanced models; and 
   2. right now we have the necessary safety measures to create the next generation of models with low risk.
3. If AI progress continues without corresponding progress on safety, then (2.b) will no longer hold, so we should indeed pause at that time, hence the RSP.

If you believe that (2.a) and (2.b) are both true, then you can argue that RSPs are better than an immediate pause without referring to compute/algorithm overhang. If you believe that one of (2.a) and (2.b) is false, but are skeptical of a pause because you believe compute/algorithm overhang would increase risk (or at least negate the benefit), then it seems you should also be skeptical of RSPs.