[ben_w]

> Serious safety researchers are doing stuff like understanding neural circuits. Very different.

There's a very broad range of unsolved safety issues in AI, and what she does is perfectly validly in that category even though she herself will deny the value of anything in the general category of "TESCREAL".

It's like how computer science safety can be anything and everything from "Should platforms like Meta be required to have a minimum age requirement?" and "Should section 230 provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users?", but also "How can we formalise system testing requirements to prove that things like Therac-25 never happens again?" and "Is the Boeing 737 MAX flight control software actually safe?"

[qcnguy]

I wouldn't describe the first two as computer science safety arguments. Those are purely social and merely the latest iteration of exactly the same debate that occurred around VHS tapes, newspapers, etc. The latter two are very specific to computing.

[ben_w]

230 is something that couldn't have existed with newspapers, because for "letters to the editor" it's obvious both who the editor is and that this is the opinion of some named public person whose opinion they were willing to reproduce. There may have been such an argument about telephones back in the day, but those are so old now…

Anyway, point is that AI does something new besides "is software" in the same way that computers do something new besides "is electrical" — social implications of ${new_tool} is absolutely relevant to all discussions about ${safety|new_tool}. Don't need to invent motor vehicle licenses or motor vehicles safety requirements or traffic lights before the invention of cars.

Edit: or to put it another way, "yes, and?" — they're still about safety of ${thing}, just a question of what level to improve that safety.