Rob Bensinger ⏹️@robbensinger
In response to "What did EAs do re AI risk that is bad?":
Aside from the obvious 'being a major early funder and a major early talent source for two of the leading AI companies burning the commons', I think EAs en masse have tended to bring a toxic combination of heuristics/leanings/memes into the AI risk space. I'm especially thinking of some combination of:
'be extremely strategic and game-playing about how you spin the things you say, rather than just straightforwardly reporting on your impressions of things'
plus 'opportunistically use Modest Epistemology to dismiss unpalatable views and strategies, and to try to win PR battles'.
Normally, I'm at least a little skeptical of the counterfactual impact of people who have worsened the AI race, because if they hadn't done it, someone else might have done it in their place. But this is a bit harder to justify with EAs, because EAs legitimately have a pretty unusual combination of traits and views.
Dario and a cluster of Open-Phil-ish people seem to have a very strange and perverse set of views (at least insofar as their public statements to date represent their actual view of the situation):
---
1. AI is going to become vastly superhuman in the near future; but being a good scientist means refusing to speculate about the potential novel risks this may pose. Instead, we should only expect risks that we can clearly see today, and that seem difficult to address today.
If there is some argument for why a problem P might only show up at a higher capability level, or some argument for why a solution S that works well today will likely stop working in the future... well, those are just arguments. Arguments have a terrible track record in AI; the field is full of surprises. So we should stick to only worrying about things when the data mandates it. This is especially important to do insofar as it will help us look more credible and thereby increase our political power and influence.
2. When it comes to technical solutions to AI, the burden of proof is on the skeptic: in the absence of proof that alignment is intractable, we should behave as though we've got everything under control. At the same time, when it comes to international coordination on AI, we will treat the burden of proof as being on the non-skeptic. Absent proof that governments can coordinate on AI, we should assume that they can't coordinate. And since they can't coordinate, there's no harm in us doing a lot of things to make coordination even harder, to make our lives a bit more convenient as we work on the technical problems.
3. In general, people worried about AI risk should coordinate as much as possible to play down our concerns, so as not to look like alarmists. This is very important in order to build allies and accumulate political influence, so that we're well-positioned to act if and when an important opportunity arises.
If you're claiming that now is an important opportunity, and that we should be speaking out loudly about this issue today... well, that sounds risky and downright immodest. Many things are possible, and the future is hard to predict! Taking political risks means sacrificing enormous option value. The humble and safe thing to do is to generally not make too much of a fuss, and just make sure we're powerful later in case the need arises.
---
1-3 really does seem like an unusually toxic set of heuristics to propagate, potentially worse than replacement.
- In an engineering context, the normal mindset is to place the burden of proof on the engineer to establish safety. There's no mature engineering discipline that accepts "you can't prove this is going to kill a ton of people" as a valid argument.
The standard engineering mindset sounds almost more virtue-ethics-y or deontological rather than EA-ish -- less "ehh it's totally fine for me to put billions of lives at risk as long as my back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit analysis says the benefits are even greater!", more "I have a sacred responsibility and duty to not build things that will bring others to harm."
Certainly the casualness about p(doom) and about gambling with billions of people's lives is something that has no counterpart in any normal scientific discipline.
- Likewise, I suspect that the typical scientist or academic that would have replaced EAs / Open Phil would have been at least somewhat more inclined to just state their actual concerns about AI, and somewhat less inclined to dissemble and play political games.
Scientists are often bad at such games, they often know they're bad at such games, and they often don't like those games. EAs' fusion of "we're playing the role of a wonkish Expert community" with "we're 100% into playing political games" is plausibly a fair bit worse than the normal situation with experts.
- And EAs' attempts to play eleven-dimensional chess with the Overton window are plausibly worse than how scientists, the general public, and policymakers normally react to any technology under the sun that sounds remotely scary or concerning or creepy: "Ban it!"
Governments are incredibly trigger-happy about banning things. There's a long history of governments successfully coordinating to ban things dramatically less dangerous than superintelligent AI. And in fact, when my colleagues and I have gone out and talked to most populations about AI risk, people mostly have much more sensible and natural responses than EAs to this issue.
A way of summarizing the issue, I think, is that society depends on people blurting out their views pretty regularly, or on people having pretty simple and understandable agendas (e.g., "I want to make money" or "I want the Democrats to win").
Society's ability to do sense-making is eroded when a large fraction of the "specialists" talking about an issue are visibly dissembling and stretching the truth on the basis of agendas that are legitimately complicated and hard to understand.
Better would be to either exit the conversation, or contribute your actual pretty-full object-level thoughts to the conversation. Your sense of what's in the Overton window, and what people will listen to, has failed you a thousand times over in recent years. Stop pretending at mastery of these tricky social issues, and instead do your duty as an expert and inform people about what's happening.
