I'm confused. Shouldn't you conclude it's unethical /not/ to support safety research based off your own points.
My understanding of "safety" is that it means formalising morality, ensuring AI doesn't go astray as it recursively improves it's self, destroying our future in some horrifying way possibly worse than death.
> AI capability is limited by AI safety in the way the power of a rifle is limited by how safe it is to use
But merely making it safe to use still prevents unnecessary death. And advocacy against rifles in general, or general gun safety is a viable path to limiting the negative outcomes.
Rifles are banned in many places on Earth and they also backfire and misfire less than they used to.
Even so, you can do the simple "call your representative" and "hand out fliers" and "talk to people about how AI is net negative" with no cost to yourself and it absolutely aligns with your fundamental beliefs, right?
Comments
The reason I don’t pivot into AI safety (in a topic I might have comparative advantage in as a mathematician) is the following.
(1) I believe increasing AI capability is a net negative.
(2) AI capability is limited by AI safety in the way the power of a rifle is limited by how safe it is to use.
I.e., AI safety and AI capability look like two sides of a coin to me.
If I were disillusioned of this view I might consider it. But right now it just seems unethical and against my fundamental beliefs.
I'm confused. Shouldn't you conclude it's unethical /not/ to support safety research based off your own points.
My understanding of "safety" is that it means formalising morality, ensuring AI doesn't go astray as it recursively improves it's self, destroying our future in some horrifying way possibly worse than death.
Is a misaligned AI worse than a super - capable AI aligned with corporate interest? Because I can't really tell anymore.
> AI capability is limited by AI safety in the way the power of a rifle is limited by how safe it is to use
But merely making it safe to use still prevents unnecessary death. And advocacy against rifles in general, or general gun safety is a viable path to limiting the negative outcomes.
Rifles are banned in many places on Earth and they also backfire and misfire less than they used to.
Even so, you can do the simple "call your representative" and "hand out fliers" and "talk to people about how AI is net negative" with no cost to yourself and it absolutely aligns with your fundamental beliefs, right?
This is true. Really what I had in mind was research in AI interpretability.
I feel similarly right now, which is patr of why I shut down my company.
honestly I'm not sure a lack of safety has been stopping anyone. I suspect it's caused a lot of m̶a̶r̶k̶e̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ problems lately.