I hope you'll have a berth arguing against crippling regulations for AI, which the safety folks, in prototypical Baptists & bootleggers coalition with big tech, wish to impose. The safety risk seem self-evidently overblown (if not fanciful), while the costs imposed by regulation are all too present and real.
Ai seems like a very different topic than wealth inequality, i doubt there will be a natural way to talk about that
It would be a bit interesting to hear bryan argue against such regulations or AI risk, but a lot of of his views could be summarized as “AI existential risk is hypothetical and imagination, and we can imagine tons of ways not allowing AI would lead to disaster” and people being doomers
Whether or not that argument is legitimate, it doesnt really interact much with people concerned with AI risk.
More interesting avenues would probably be siscussing: if ai risk exists, would regulation actually improve ai safety? Does it just lead to tyranny? Does more competition lead to safer ai?
I wonder if they are going to talk about both employment and the security risk posed or just the employment risk? I feel like the safety aspect is likely hyperbolized; except maybe out of communist china, who knows AI might unintentionally be the thing that undo's the CCP as they carelessly weaponize it...
Im more in the middle between eliezer and bryan: i think crippingly regulating it is stupid and bad, bad i think some more safety and regulations on the margib is good, even if it just slows downs its growth, as humanity isnt really wise enough for AI yet
I always thought it would be prudent to have a simulated environment for AI without access to the internet before its just released either on the web or in our physical world. I'm not sure I trust the regulators, I mean this is the same class of people that said CBD had no medicinal value and heroin makes great medicine.
Are you going to post your opening statements?
I hope you'll have a berth arguing against crippling regulations for AI, which the safety folks, in prototypical Baptists & bootleggers coalition with big tech, wish to impose. The safety risk seem self-evidently overblown (if not fanciful), while the costs imposed by regulation are all too present and real.
Ai seems like a very different topic than wealth inequality, i doubt there will be a natural way to talk about that
It would be a bit interesting to hear bryan argue against such regulations or AI risk, but a lot of of his views could be summarized as “AI existential risk is hypothetical and imagination, and we can imagine tons of ways not allowing AI would lead to disaster” and people being doomers
Whether or not that argument is legitimate, it doesnt really interact much with people concerned with AI risk.
More interesting avenues would probably be siscussing: if ai risk exists, would regulation actually improve ai safety? Does it just lead to tyranny? Does more competition lead to safer ai?
Idk, some thoughts
I wonder if they are going to talk about both employment and the security risk posed or just the employment risk? I feel like the safety aspect is likely hyperbolized; except maybe out of communist china, who knows AI might unintentionally be the thing that undo's the CCP as they carelessly weaponize it...
Im more in the middle between eliezer and bryan: i think crippingly regulating it is stupid and bad, bad i think some more safety and regulations on the margib is good, even if it just slows downs its growth, as humanity isnt really wise enough for AI yet
I always thought it would be prudent to have a simulated environment for AI without access to the internet before its just released either on the web or in our physical world. I'm not sure I trust the regulators, I mean this is the same class of people that said CBD had no medicinal value and heroin makes great medicine.
If your AI is that advanced, it has probably already been released into the world in a slightly less advanced form
Such an amazing bunch of people