Discussion about this post

User's avatar
DangerouslyUnstable's avatar

To Scott Sumner's argument:

Actually, no, we don't care that more intelligent people are nicer to strangers (even if they are). What we actually care about is: are more intelligent people more likely to be serious, active, involved *conservationists*. Because in the AI example, we are not strangers, because we are not peers. We are (charitably) chimpanzees who provide no real economic value to humans but some very small number of people have decided are worth saving for non-economic reasons.

And in my experience, beyond some very trivial "oh sure, conserving species sounds good", no, most smart people don't seem more likely to be willing to sacrifice towards conservation related ends.

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

So what is the actual explanation why Dario, Altman etc so openly and blatantly contradict what they said was needed for AI safety just a few years ago? Are they just sociopaths happy to ride any wave if it gives them more power? Have they been corrupted by getting a little power and now want all the power? Have their expectations about the safety of future AI improved by seeing LLMs which deeply understand human language and ideas, and thus seem unlikely to grow into naive paperclippers?

Expand full comment
33 more comments...

No posts