[delichon]

If superintelligence can be achieved, I'm pessimistic that a team committed to doing it safely can get there faster than other teams without the safety. They may be wearing leg shackles in a foot race with the biggest corporations, governments and everyone else. For the sufficiently power hungry, safety is not a moat.

[null_point]

I'm on the fence with this because it's plausible that some critical component of achieving superintelligence might be discovered more quickly by teams that, say, have sophisticated mechanistic interpretability incorporated into their systems.

[AgentME]

A point of evidence in this direction is that RLHF was developed originally as an alignment technique and then it turned out to be a breakthrough that also made LLMs better and more useful. Alignment and capabilities work aren't necessarily at odds with each other.

[nialv7]

Not necessarily true. A safer AI is a more aligned AI, i.e. an AI that's more likely to do what you ask it to do.

It's not hard to imagine such an AI being more useful and get more attention and investment.

[daniel_reetz]

Exactly. Regulation and safety only affect law abiding entities. This is precisely why it's a "genie out of the bottle" situation -- those who would do the worst with it are uninhibited.