Posts
Comments
Your comment about 1e-6 p-doom is not right because we face many other X-risks that developing AGI would reduce.
Ah you're right, I wasn't thinking about that. (Well I don't think it's obvious that an aligned AGI would reduce other x-risks, but my guess is it probably would.)
I find it hard to trust that AI safety people really care about AI safety.
- DeepMind, OpenAI, Anthropic, and SSI were all founded in the name of safety. Instead they have greatly increased danger. And at least OpenAI and Anthropic have been caught lying about their motivations:
- OpenAI: claiming concern about hardware overhang and then trying to massively scale up hardware; promising compute to superalignment team and then not giving it; telling board that model passed safety testing when it hadn't; too many more to list.
- Anthropic: promising (in a mealy-mouthed technically-not-lying sort of way) not to push the frontier, and then pushing the frontier; trying (and succeeding) to weaken SB-1047; lying about their connection to EA (that's not related to x-risk but it's related to trustworthiness).
- For whatever reason, I had the general impression that Epoch is about reducing x-risk (and I was not the only one with that impression) but:
- Epoch is not about reducing x-risk, and they were explicit about this but I didn't learn it until this week
- its FrontierMath benchmark was funded by OpenAI and OpenAI allegedly has access to the benchmark (see comment on why this is bad)
- some of their researchers left to start another build-AGI startup (I'm not sure how badly this reflects on Epoch as an org but at minimum it means donors were funding people who would go on to work on capabilities)
- Director Jaime Sevilla believes "violent AI takeover" is not a serious concern, and "I also selfishly care about AI development happening fast enough that my parents, friends and myself could benefit from it, and I am willing to accept a certain but not unbounded amount of risk from speeding up development", and "on net I support faster development of AI, so we can benefit earlier from it" which is a very hard position to justify (unjustified even on P(doom) = 1e-6, unless you assign ~zero value to people who are not yet born)
- I feel bad picking on Epoch/Jaime because they are being unusually forthcoming about their motivations, in a way that exposes them to criticism. This is noble of them; I expect most orgs not to be this noble.
- When some other org does something that looks an awful lot like it's accelerating capabilities, and they make some argument about how it's good for safety, I can't help but wonder if they secretly believe the same things as Epoch and are not being forthright about their motivations
- My rough guess is for every transparent org like Epoch, there are 3+ orgs that are pretending to care about x-risk but actually don't
- Whenever some new report comes out about AI capabilities, like the METR task duration projection, people talk about how "exciting" it is. There is a missing mood here. I don't know what's going on inside the heads of x-risk people such that they see new evidence on the potentially imminent demise of humanity and they find it "exciting". But whatever mental process results in this choice of words, I don't trust that it will also result in them taking actions that reduce x-risk.
- Many AI safety people currently or formerly worked at AI companies. They stand to make money from accelerating AI capabilities. The same is true of grantmakers
- I briefly looked thru some grantmakers and I see financial COIs at Open Philanthropy, Survival and Flourishing Fund, and Manifund; but none at Long-Term Future Fund
- A different sort of conflict of interest: many AI safety researchers have an ML background and enjoy doing ML. Unsurprisingly, they often arrive at the belief that doing ML research is the best way to make AI safe. This ML research often involves making AIs better at stuff. Pausing AI development (or imposing significant restrictions) would mean they don't get to do ML research anymore. If they oppose a pause/slowdown, is that for ethical reasons, or is it because it would interfere with their careers?
- At a moderate P(doom), say under 25%, from a selfish perspective it makes sense to accelerate AI if it increases the chance that you get to live forever, even if it increases your risk of dying. I have heard from some people that this is their motivation. I am appalled at the level of selfishness required to seek immortality at the cost of risking all of humanity. And I'm sure most people who hold this position know it's appalling, so they keep it secret and publicly give rationalizations for why accelerating AI is actually the right thing to do. In a way, I admire people who are open about their selfishness, and I expect they are the minority.
But you should know that you might not be able to trust me either.
- I have some moral uncertainty but my best guess is that future people are just as valuable as present-day people. You might think this leads me to put too much priority on reducing x-risk relative to helping currently-alive people. You might think it's unethical that I'm willing to delay AGI (potentially hurting currently-alive people) to reduce x-risk.
- I care a lot about non-human animals, and I believe it's possible in principle to trade off human welfare against animal welfare. (Although if anything, I think that should make me care less about x-risk, not more.)
(edit: removed an inaccurate statement)
I've been doing this for about 10 years. This January I needed to get some new socks but my brand was discontinued so I decided to buy a few different brands and compare them. I will take this opportunity to write a public sock review.
- CS CELERSPORT Ankle Athletic Running Socks Low Cut Sports Tab Socks (the black version of the brand you linked): I did not like the wrinkle in the back, and the texture was a bit weird. 4/5.
- Hanes Men's Max Cushioned Ankle Socks: Cozy and nice texture, but they made my feet too hot. I might buy these if I lived somewhere colder. 4/5.
- Hanes Men's Socks, X-Temp Cushioned No Show Socks: Nice texture, and not too hot. A little tight on the toes which makes it harder for me to wiggle them. These are the ones I decided to go with. 4.5/5.
Finally, none of the frameworks make provisions for putting probabilities on anything. The framework itself needn’t include the hard numbers—indeed, such numbers might best be continually updated—but a risk management framework should point to a process that outputs well-calibrated risk estimates for known and unknown pathways before and after mitigation.
AI companies should publish numerical predictions, open Metaculus questions for each of their predictions, and provide large monetary prizes for predictors.
Let's say out of those 200 activities, (for simplicity) 199 would take humans 1 year, and one takes 100 years. If a researcher AI is only half as good as humans at some of the 199 tasks, but 100x better at the human-bottleneck task, then AI can do in 2 years what humans can do in 100.
Couldn't the Amdahl's Law argument work in the opposite direction (i.e. even shorter timelines)?
Suppose AI R&D conducted by humans would take 100 years to achieve ASI. By Amdahl's Law, there is likely some critical aspect of research that humans are particularly bad at, that causes the research to take a long time. An SAR might be good at the things humans are bad at (in a way that can't be fixed by humans + AI working together—human + calculator is much better at arithmetic than human alone, but human + AlphaGo isn't better at Go). So SAR might be able to get ASI in considerably less than 100 human-equivalent-years.
It seems to me that, a priori, we should expect Amdahl's Law to affect humans and SARs to the same degree, so it shouldn't change our time estimate. Unless there is some specific reason to believe that human researchers are less vulnerable to Amdahl's Law; I don't know enough to say whether that's true.
- I strongly suspect that a Trump-controlled AGI would not respect democracy.
- I strongly suspect that an Altman-controlled AGI would not respect democracy.
- I have my doubts about the other heads of AI companies.
I think some Trump-adjacent people made this mistake (e.g. Peter Thiel maybe), but I don't see how any of the three people in OP were making it? None of them were trying to rise to positions of power in the Trump administration as far as I know.
That's a good map; it changed my mind on how seriously to take these sorts of rankings. Do you know the original source? On reverse image search I just found a bunch of reddit posts with hosted copies of the image.
I think there is a fourth option (although it's not likely to happen):
- Indefinitely pause AI development.
- Figure out a robust way to do preference agglomeration.
- Encode #2 into law.
- Resume AI development (after solving all other safety problems too, of course).
I was going to say step 2 is "draw the rest of the owl" but really this plan has multiple "draw the rest of the owl" steps.
This is a good concept. I built a similar Squiggle model a few weeks ago* (although it's still a rough draft), I hadn't realized you'd beaten me to it. So I guess you won the race to build an arms race model? :P
If I'm reading this right, it looks like the model assumes that if the US doesn't race, then China gets TAI first with 100% probability. That seems wrong to me. Race dynamics mean that when you go faster, the other party also goes faster. If the US slows down, there's a good chance China also slows down.
Also, regarding specific values, the model's average P(doom) values are:
- 10% if race + US wins
- 20% if race + China wins
- 15% if no race + China wins
That doesn't sound right to me. Racing is very bad for safety and right now the US leaders are not going a good job, so I think P(doom | no race & China wins) is less than P(doom | race & US wins). Although I think this is pretty debatable.
*My model found that racing was bad and I had to really contort the parameter values to reverse that result. I haven't thought much about the model construction so there could be unfair built-in assumptions.
I think the right way to self-destruct isn't to shut down entirely. It's to spend all your remaining assets on safety (whether that be lobbying for regulations, or research, or whatever). This would greatly increase the total amount of money spent on safety efforts so it might help quite a lot.
I do believe shutting down does have a decent chance, although not a comfortingly large one, of scaring government and/or other AI companies into taking the risks seriously.
I think the statement in the parent comment is too general. What I should have said is that every generalist frontier AI company has been net negative. Narrow AI companies that provide useful services and have ~zero chance of accelerating AGI are probably net positive.
I thought, "AI safety conscious people will tend to give up too easily while trying to conceive of a net positive alignment startup,"
This seems like a fairly important premise to your position but I don't think it's true. Many safety-conscious people have started for-profit companies. As far as I can tell, every single one of those companies has been net negative. Safety-conscious people are starting too many companies, not too few.
I'm not confident that there are no net-positive AI startup ideas. But I'm confident that for the median randomly-chosen idea that someone thinks is net positive, it's actually net negative.
Not to say it's impossible, but OpenAI tried to do this with the profit cap and it didn't work.
Thanks, that's useful info!
I thought you could post images by dragging and dropping files into the comment box, I seem to recall doing that in the past, but now it doesn't seem to work for me. Maybe that only works for top-level posts?
Is Claude "more aligned" than Llama?
Anthropic seems to be the AI company that cares the most about AI risk, and Meta cares the least. If Anthropic is doing more alignment research than Meta, do the results of that research visibly show up in the behavior of Claude vs. Llama?
I am not sure how you would test this. The first thing that comes to mind is to test how easily different LLMs can be tricked into doing things they were trained not to do, but I don't know if that's a great example of an "alignment failure". You could test model deception but you'd need some objective standard to compare different models on.
And I am not sure how much you should even expect the results of alignment research to show up in present-day LLMs.
Hmm I wonder if this is why so many April Fools posts have >200 upvotes. April Fools Day in cahoots with itself?
isn't your squiggle model talking about whether racing is good, rather than whether unilaterally pausing is good?
Yes the model is more about racing than about pausing but I thought it was applicable here. My thinking was that there is a spectrum of development speed with "completely pause" on one end and "race as fast as possible" on the other. Pushing more toward the "pause" side of the spectrum has the ~opposite effect as pushing toward the "race" side.
I wish you'd try modeling this with more granularity than "is alignment hard" or whatever
- I've never seen anyone else try to quantitatively model it. As far as I know, my model is the most granular quantitative model ever made. Which isn't to say it's particularly granular (I spent less than an hour on it) but this feels like an unfair criticism.
- In general I am not a fan of criticisms of the form "this model is too simple". All models are too simple. What, specifically, is wrong with it?
I had a quick look at the linked post and it seems to be making some implicit assumptions, such as
- the plan of "use AI to make AI safe" has a ~100% chance of working (the post explicitly says this is false, but then proceeds as if it's true)
- there is a ~100% chance of slow takeoff
- if you unilaterally pause, this doesn't increase the probability that anyone else pauses, doesn't make it easier to get regulations passed, etc.
I would like to see some quantification of the from "we think there is a 30% chance that we can bootstrap AI alignment using AI; a unilateral pause will only increase the probability of a global pause by 3 percentage points; and there's only a 50% chance that the 2nd-leading company will attempt to align AI in a way we'd find satisfactory, therefore we think the least-risky plan is to stay at the front of the race and then bootstrap AI alignment." (Or a more detailed version of that.)
I think it would probably be bad for the US to unilaterally force all US AI developers to pause if they didn't simultaneously somehow slow down non-US development.
It seems to me that to believe this, you have to believe all of these four things are true:
- Solving AI alignment is basically easy
- Non-US frontier AI developers are not interested in safety
- Non-US frontier AI developers will quickly catch up to the US
- If US developers slow down, then non-US developers are very unlikely to also slow down—either voluntarily, or because the US strong-arms them into signing a non-proliferation treaty, or whatever
I think #3 is sort-of true and the others are probably false, so the probability of all four being simultaneously true is quite low.
(Statements I've seen from Chinese developers lead me to believe that they are less interested in racing and more concerned about safety.)
I made a quick Squiggle model on racing vs. slowing down. Based on my first-guess parameters, it suggests that racing to build AI destroys ~half the expected value of the future compared to not racing. Parameter values are rough, of course.
That's kind-of what happened with the anti-nuclear movement, but it ended up doing lots of harm because the things that could be stopped were the good ones!
The global stockpile of nuclear weapons is down 6x since its peak in 1986. Hard to attribute causality but if the anti-nuclear movement played a part in that, then I'd say it was net positive.
(My guess is it's more attributable to the collapse of the Soviet Union than to anything else, but the anti-nuclear movement probably still played some nonzero role)
Yeah I actually agree with that, I don't think it was sufficient, I just think it was pretty good. I wrote the comment too quickly without thinking about my wording.
I feel kind of silly about supporting PauseAI. Doing ML research, or writing long fancy policy reports feels high status. Public protests feel low status. I would rather not be seen publicly advocating for doing something low-status. I suspect a good number of other people feel the same way.
(I do in fact support PauseAI US, and I have defended it publicly because I think it's important to do so, but it makes me feel silly whenever I do.)
That's not the only reason why people don't endorse PauseAI, but I think it's an important reason that should be mentioned.
Well -- I'm gonna speak broadly -- if you look at the history of PauseAI, they are marked by belief that the measures proposed by others are insufficient for Actually Stopping AI -- for instance the kind of policy measures proposed by people working at AI companies isn't enough; that the kind of measures proposed by people funded by OpenPhil are often not enough; and so on.
They are correct as far as I can tell. Can you identify a policy measure proposed by an AI company or an OpenPhil-funded org that you think would be sufficient to stop unsafe AI development?
I think there is indeed exactly one such policy measure, which is SB 1047, supported by Center for AI Safety which is OpenPhil-funded (IIRC), which most big AI companies lobbied against, and Anthropic opposed the original stronger version and got it reduced to a weaker and probably less-safe version.
When I wrote where I was donating in 2024 I went through a bunch of orgs' policy proposals and explained why they appear deeply inadequate. Some specific relevant parts: 1, 2, 3, 4
Edit: Adding some color so you don't have to click through– when I say the proposals I reviewed were inadequate, I mean they said things like (paraphrasing) "safety should be done on a completely voluntary basis with no government regulations" and "companies should have safety officers but those officers should not have final say on anything", and would simply not address x-risk at all, or would make harmful proposals like "the US Department of Defense should integrate more AI into its weapon systems" or "we need to stop worrying about x-risk because it's distracting from the real issues".
If you look at the kind of claims that PauseAI makes in their risks page, you might believe that some of them seem exaggerated, or that PauseAI is simply throwing all the negative things they can find about AI into big list to make it see bad. If you think that credibility is important to the effort to pause AI, then PauseAI might seem very careless about truth in a way that could backfire.
A couple notes on this:
- AFAICT PauseAI US does not do the thing you describe.
- I've looked at a good amount of research on protest effectiveness. There are many observational studies showing that nonviolent protests are associated with preferred policy changes / voting patterns, and ~four natural experiments. If protests backfired for fairly minor reasons like "their website makes some hard-to-defend claims" (contrasted with major reasons like "the protesters are setting buildings on fire"), I think that would show up in the literature, and it doesn't.
B. "Pausing AI" is indeed more popular than PauseAI, but it's not clearly possible to make a more popular version of PauseAI that actually does anything; any such organization will have strategy/priorities/asks/comms that alienate many of the people who think "yeah I support pausing AI."
This strikes me as a very strange claim. You're essentially saying, even if a general policy is widely supported, it's practically impossible to implement any specific version of that policy? Why would that be true?
For example I think a better alternative to "nobody fund PauseAI, and nobody make an alternative version they like better" would be "there are 10+ orgs all trying to pause AI and they all have somewhat different goals but they're all generally pushing in the direction of pausing AI". I think in the latter scenario you are reasonably likely to get some decent policies put into place even if they're not my favorite.
I don't think you could refute it. I believe you could construct a binary polynomial function that gives the correct answer to every example.
For example it is difficult to reconcile the cases of 3, 12, and 19 using a reasonable-looking function, but you could solve all three cases by defining E E as the left-associative binary operation
f(x, y) = -1/9 x^2 + 32/9 x - 22/9 + y
You could technically say Google is a marketing company, but Google's ability to sell search ads doesn't depend on being good at marketing in the traditional sense. It's not like Google is writing ads themselves and selling the ad copy to companies.
I believe the correct way to do this, at least in theory, is to simply have bets denominated in the risk-free rate—and if anyone wants more risk, they can use leverage to simultaneously invest in equities and prediction markets.
Right now I don't know if it's possible to use margin loans to invest in prediction markets.
I looked through ChatGPT again and I figured out that I did in fact do it wrong. I found Deep Research by going to the "Explore GPTs" button in the top right, which AFAICT searches through custom modules made by 3rd parties. The OpenAI-brand Deep Research is accessed by clicking the "Deep research" button below the chat input text box.
I don't really get the point in releasing a report that explicitly assumes x-risk doesn't happen. Seems to me that x-risk is the only outcome worth thinking about given the current state of the AI safety field (i.e. given how little funding goes to x-risk). Extinction is so catastrophically worse than any other outcome* that more "normal" problems aren't worth spending time on.
I don't mean this as a strong criticism of Epoch, more that I just don't understand their worldview at all.
*except S-risks but Epoch isn't doing anything related to those AFAIK
for example, by having bets denominated in S&P 500 or other stock portfolios rather than $s
Bets should be denominated in the risk-free rate. Prediction markets should invest traders' money into T-bills and pay back the winnings plus interest.
I believe that should be a good enough incentive to make prediction markets a good investment if you can find positive-EV bets that aren't perfectly correlated with equities (or other risky assets).
(For Polymarket the situation is a bit more complicated because it uses crypto.)
Thanks, this is helpful! After reading this post I bought ChatGPT Plus and tried a question on Deep Research:
Please find literature reviews / meta-analyses on the best intensity at which to train HIIT (i.e. maximum sustainable speed vs. leaving some in the tank)
I got much worse results than you did:
- ChatGPT misunderstood my question. Its response answered the question "is HIIT better than MICT for improving fitness".
- Even allowing that we're talking about HIIT vs. MICT: I was previously aware of 3 meta-analyses on that question. ChatGPT cited none of those 3 and instead cited 7 other studies, 1 of which was hallucinated, and 3 of which were individual studies not meta-analyses.
- It made some claims but did not say which claims came from which sources, and there are some claims that look like they couldn't have been in any of the sources (but I didn't go through all of them).
In fact my results are so much worse that I suspected I did something wrong.
Link to my chat: https://chatgpt.com/share/67e30421-8ef4-8011-973f-2b39f0ae58a4
Last week I asked something similar on Perplexity (I don't have the chat log saved) and it correctly understood what I wanted, and it reported that there were no studies that answered my question. I believe Perplexity is correct because I also could not find any relevant studies on Google Scholar.
[Time Value of Money] The Yes people are betting that, later this year, their counterparties (the No betters) will want cash (to bet on other markets), and so will sell out of their No positions at a higher price.
How does this strategy compare to shorting bonds? Both have the same payoff structure (they make money if the discount rate goes up) but it's not clear to me which is a better deal. I suppose it depends on whether you expect Polymarket investors to have especially high demand for cash.
I'm glad to hear that! I often don't hear much response to my essays so it's good to know you've read some of them :)
I don't have a mistakes page but last year I wrote a one-off post of things I've changed my mind on.
I have a few potential criticisms of this paper. I think my criticisms are probably wrong and the paper's conclusion is right, but I'll just put them out there:
- Nearly half the tasks in the benchmark take 1 to 30 seconds (the ones from the SWAA set). According to the fitted task time <> P(success) curve, most tested LLMs should be able to complete those with high probability, so they don't provide much independent signal.
- However, I expect task time <> P(success) curve would look largely the same if you excluded the SWAA tasks.
- SWAA tasks take humans 1 to 30 seconds and HCAST tasks take 1 minute to 30 hours. The two different sets are non-overlapping. If HCAST tasks are harder than SWAA tasks for LLMs, then a regression will indicate that LLMs are getting better at longer tasks when really they're just getting better at HCAST tasks.
- I think this criticism is wrong—if it were true, the across-dataset correlation between time and LLM-difficulty should be higher than the within-dataset correlation, but from eyeballing Figure 4 (page 10), it looks like it's not higher (or at least not much).
- The benchmark tasks could have a bias where longer tasks are more difficult in general (not just because they're longer). I haven't looked through all the HCAST tasks (in fact I couldn't find where they were listed) but Figure 16 on page 29 shows that humans had lower success rates on longer tasks. As example tasks, the paper gives, among others, "Research simple factual information from Wikipedia" = 1 minute and "Write a Python script to transform JSON data" = 56 minutes (page 6). I think a more comparable 56-minute task would be something like "find some factual information that's buried in a long article", which I believe even a GPT-3-eara LLM would perform well on.
- I don't know enough about the tasks to know whether this criticism is correct. My uneducated guess is that there's a true positive relationship between task length and (non-length-related-)task difficulty, but that if you adjusted for this, you'd still see an exponential trend in task time <> P(success), and the curve would just be dampened a bit.
- The authors also suspect that longer tasks might be more difficult, and "[i]f this is the case, we may be underestimating the pace of model improvement." I think it would mean we're underestimating the pace of improvement on hard tasks, while simultaneously overestimating the pace of improvement on long tasks.
Why do you think this narrows the distribution?
I can see an argument for why, tell me if this is what you're thinking–
The biggest reason why LLM paradigm might never reach AI takeoff is that LLMs can only complete short-term tasks, and can't maintain coherence over longer time scales (e.g. if an LLM writes something long, it will often start contradicting itself). And intuitively it seems that scaling up LLMs hasn't fixed this problem. However, this paper shows that LLMs have been getting better at longer-term tasks, so LLMs probably will scale to AGI.
A few miscellaneous thoughts:
- I agree with Dagon that the most straightforward solution is simply to sell your equity as soon as it vests. If you don't do anything else then I think at least you should do that—it's a good idea just on the basis of diversification, not even considering conflicts of interest.
- I think you should be willing to take quite a large loss to divest. In a blog post, I estimated that for an investor with normal-ish risk aversion, it's worth paying ~4% per year to avoid the concentration risk of holding a single mega-cap stock (so you're willing to pay more to get rid of stock that vests later). Then add the conflict-of-interest factor on top of that. How much COI matters depends on how much influence you have over Google's AI policy and how much you think you'll be swayed by monetary incentives. My guess is the COI factor matters less than 4% per year but that's not based on anything concrete.
- "[Google’s Insider Trading Policy] describes company-wide policies that address the risks of insider trading, such as a prohibition on any Google employee hedging Google stock": I read this as saying you can't hedge Google stock based on insider information, not that you can't hedge it at all. But I don't know what the law says about hedging stock in your employer.
This is the belief of basically everyone running a major AGI lab. Obviously all but one of them must be mistaken, but it's natural that they would all share the same delusion.
I agree with this description and I don't think this is sane behavior.
Actions speak louder than words, and their actions are far less sane than these words.
For example, if Demis regularly lies awake at night worrying about how the thing he's building could kill everyone, why is he still putting so much more effort into building it than into making it safe?
I was familiar enough to recognize that it was an edit of something I had seen before, but not familiar enough to remember what the original was
I'm really not convinced that public markets do reliably move in the predictable (downward) direction in response to "bad news" (wars, coups, pandemics, etc).
Also, market movements are hard to detect. How much would Trump violating a court order decrease the total (time-discounted) future value of the US economy? Probably less than 5%? And what is the probability that he violates a court order? Maybe 40%? So the market should move <2%, and evidence about this potential event so far has come in slowly instead of at a single dramatic moment so this <2% drop could have been spread over multiple weeks.
If I'm allowed to psychoanalyze funders rather than discussing anything at the object level, I'd speculate that funders like evals because:
- If you funded the creation of an eval, you can point to a concrete thing you did. Compare to funding theoretical technical research, which has a high chance of producing no tangible outputs; or funding policy work, which has a high chance of not resulting in any policy change. (Streetlight Effect.)
- AI companies like evals, and funders seem to like doing things AI companies like, for various reasons including (a) the thing you funded will get used (by the AI companies) and (b) you get to stay friends with the AI companies.
I don't know what the regulatory plan is, I was just referring to this poll, which I didn't read in full, I just read the title. Reading it now, it's not so much a plan as a vision, and it's not so much "Musk's vision" as it is a viewpoint (that the poll claims is associated with Musk) in favor of regulating the risks of AI. Which is very different from JD Vance's position; Vance's position is closer to the one that does not poll well.
I guess I'm expressing doubt about the viability of wise or cautious AI strategies, given our new e/acc world order, in which everyone who can, is sprinting uninhibitedly towards superintelligence.
e/acc does not poll well and there is widespread popular support for regulating AI (see AIPI polls). If the current government favors minimal regulations, that's evidence that an AI safety candidate is more likely to succeed, not less.
(Although I'm not sure that follows because I think the non-notkilleveryonism variety of AI safety is more popular. Also Musk's regulatory plan is polling well and I'm not sure if it differs from e.g. Vance's plan.)
If you publicly commit to something, taking down the written text does not constitute a de-commitment. Violating a prior commitment is unethical regardless of whether the text of the commitment is still on your website.
(Not that there's any mechanism to hold Google to its commitments, or that these commitments ever meant anything—Google was always going to do whatever it wanted anyway.)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is a mid-sized model that cost a few $10M's to train
I don't get this, if frontier(ish) models cost $10M–$100M, why is Nvidia's projected revenue more like $1T–$10T? Is the market projecting 100,000x growth in spending on frontier models within the next few years? I would have guessed more like 100x–1000x growth but at least one of my numbers must be wrong. (Or maybe they're all wrong by ~1 OOM?)
This is actually a crazy big effect size? Preventing ~10–50% of a cold for taking a few pills a day seems like a great deal to me.
Don't push the frontier of regulations. Obviously this is basically saying that Anthropic should stop making money and therefore stop existing. The more nuanced version is that for Anthropic to justify its existence, each time it pushes the frontier of capabilities should be earned by substantial progress on the other three points.
I think I have a stronger position on this than you do. I don't think Anthropic should push the frontier of capabilities, even given the tradeoff it faces.
If their argument is "we know arms races are bad, but we have to accelerate arms races or else we can't do alignment research," they should be really really sure that they do, actually, have to do the bad thing to get the good thing. But I don't think you can be that sure and I think the claim is actually less than 50% likely to be true.
- I don't take it for granted that Anthropic wouldn't exist if it didn't push the frontier. It could operate by intentionally lagging a bit behind other AI companies while still staying roughly competitive, and/or it could compete by investing harder in good UX. I suspect a (say) 25% worse model is not going to be much less profitable.
- (This is a weaker argument but) If it does turn out that Anthropic really can't exist without pushing the frontier and it has to close down, that's probably a good thing. At the current level of investment in AI alignment research, I believe reducing arms race dynamics + reducing alignment research probably net decreases x-risk, and it would be better for this version of Anthropic not to exist. People at Anthropic probably disagree, but they should be very concerned that they have a strong personal incentive to disagree, and should be wary of their own bias. And they should be especially especially wary given that they hold the fate of humanity in their hands.