> If the risks were real they would just outright stop working on their AI products. This is nothing more than a PR statement
This statement contains a bunch of hidden assumptions:
1. That they believe their stopping will address the problem.
2. That they believe the only choice is whether or not to stop.
3. That they don't think it's possible to make AI safe through sufficient regulation.
4. That they don't see benefits to pursuing AI that could outweigh risks.
If they believe any of these things, then they could believe the risks were real and also not believe that stopping was the right answer.
And it doesn't depend on whether any of these beliefs are true: it's sufficient for them to simply believe one of them and the assumptions your statement depends on break down.
If you think that raising instead of cutting taxes actually helps society then why don’t you just send your $ to the federal government?
Because it only works if it is done across the whole country, as a system not as one individual unilaterally stopping.
And here any of these efforts won’t work unless there is international cooperation. If other countries can develop the AI weapons, and get an advantage, then you will also.
We need to apply the same thinking as chemical weapons or the Montreal Conference for banning CFCs
I agree that nothing about the statement makes me think the risks are real however I disagree that if the risks are real these companies would stop working on their product. I think more realistically they'd shut up about the risk and downplay it a lot. Much like the oil industry did wrt climate change going back to the 70's.
Oil industries downplaying the risks makes a lot more sense. If you think that climate change will happen, but it'll happen after you're dead, and you'll be able to leave your kids a big inheritance so they'll be able to buy their way out of the worst of it, and eventually the government will get the message and stop us all using fossil fuels anyway, then you try to profit as much as you can in the short term.
With AGI existential risk, its likely to happen on a much shorter timescale, and it seems likely you won't be able to buy your way out of it.
Ockham's Razor doesn't apply in adversarial situations.
- - - -
I think the primary risk these folks are worried about is loss of control. And in turn, that's because they're all people for whom the system has more-or-less worked.
Poor people are worried the risk that the rich will keep the economic windfall to themselves and not share it.
> I think more realistically they'd shut up about the risk and downplay it a lot.
AI is an existential threat to search engines like Google, social media (FB, Twitter), advertising networks, and other massive multinationals. Many other industries, including academia is threatened as well. They’d all rather strangle the AI baby in the crib now then let it grow up and threaten them.
They believe the only way it should be allowed to grow is under their benevolent control.
It’s hard not to look at his departure through a cynical lens. He’s not been supportive of other critics, both from and outside of Google. He also wants to use his history to (rightfully) claim expertise and power but not to offer solutions.
I disagree. My read on him is that until very recently (i.e., possibly when GPT4 came out) he didn't take x-risks concerns seriously, or at least assumed we were still many decades away from the point where we need to worry about them.
But the abilities of the latest crop of LLMs changed his mind. And he very publicly admitted he had been wrong, which should be applauded, even if you think it took him far too long.
By quitting and saying it was because of his worries he sent a strong message. I agree it is unlikely he'll make any contributions to technical alignment, but just having such an eminent figure publicly take these issues seriously can have a strong impact.
This statement contains a bunch of hidden assumptions:
1. That they believe their stopping will address the problem. 2. That they believe the only choice is whether or not to stop. 3. That they don't think it's possible to make AI safe through sufficient regulation. 4. That they don't see benefits to pursuing AI that could outweigh risks.
If they believe any of these things, then they could believe the risks were real and also not believe that stopping was the right answer.
And it doesn't depend on whether any of these beliefs are true: it's sufficient for them to simply believe one of them and the assumptions your statement depends on break down.