@MIRIBerkeley. If we build opaque superhuman AIs, it's likely to get us killed. The least-bad solution is an international agreement like intelligence.org/ban.
I've been really enjoying @mattyglesias' "the thing you said is not literally true, and yes I'm going to be annoying about it, stop saying literally false things" schtick.
The world desperately, desperately needs more annoying pedantry, as a tax on the ratchet of hyperbole.
"Bad take" bingo cards are terrible, because they never actually say what's wrong with any of the arguments they're making fun of.
So here's the "bad AI alignment take bingo" meme that's been going around... but with actual responses to the "bad takes"!
A surprising thing I've realized over time is that I can often outperform without being super clever, just by doing normal garden-variety thinking and not letting the thinking get derailed by [List of Tempting Distractions and Simple Mistakes].
There sure is a lot of Twitter discourse the last 24 hours from people who seem to legitimately not realize that all the leadership conflicts and disagreements at OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. are between people who share the view that AI isn't unlikely to kill literally all humans.
It's almost impossible to put into words just how insane, just how plain stupid, the current situation is.
We're watching smart, technical people get together to push projects that are literally going to get every person on the planet killed on the default trajectory.
Seems like the first news article with leaks from the board, and possibly the first to represent something like their perspective?
I have to say, if @sama was trying to keep board members from saying anything negative about OpenAI's safety practices in public, I think this is
New info!
-Sam was trying to push Helen out for her academic paper critical of OAI; Ilya sided with her to push out Sam
-The Anthropic folks had also tried to push Sam out
-There are 6 board members bc of disagreement on who to add
-Helen ok to destroy OAI for the mission
Aella's a friend of mine, and she seems to be the person I know who gets by far the largest amount of obviously unreasonable and extreme Internet hate. (Not even factoring in the stalking, death threats, murder attempts, et cetera. Christ.)
It's true, and seems worth saying.
Feels under-remarked on that the top 3 AI labs respectively forecast "full" AGI (or in the case of Anthropic, AIs that are autonomously replicating, accumulating resources, “have become the primary source of national security risk in a major area”, etc.) in 1-4, ~6, or 6-7 years.
A common mistake I see people make is that they assume AI risk discourse is like the left image, when it's actually like the right image.
I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that the upper right quadrant is ~empty. People really want some group to be upper-right.
