[holmesworcester]

> 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.

[EGreg]

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