and while we are at it, just create an 'economic zone' where there is basically zero government regulation for anything and we can build and make the future better
For me they are correct on the web, but show up as all numbers on the substack app and in my RSS reader. This is always the case with DWATV lists. No idea why. My only advice is to switch to the web for these big nested-list-style posts, if you can.
> When we get down to the actual asks in the document, a majority of them I actually agree with, and most of them are reasonable, once I was able to force myself to read the words intended to have meaning.
The movement for an AI pause was a total failure with both policy makers and the general public. That was a signal to the rationalist/AI safety community that they do not speak *or even understand* the language commonly used in these discussions.
Focus on the content of the proposals, and aggressively down weight the emotional response provoked by the form and the language. This community is not the intended audience, and the language this community would find congenial and persuasive would be very ineffective at reaching the intended audience.
This document just reads like a set of completely generic, mundane statements to me. Yeah we should consider all stakeholders and the impact on blah blah blah.
I suspect the wording of these proposals would be extremely different if Kamala was president.
Also I noted, how they mentioned talent quite a bit to ensure American dominance, but never talked about immigration, avoiding attracting any ire from the current administration
I would say this is just putting another mask on, palatable to the new president. Just like Zuck going on Rogan to discuss his deeply hidden reservations over content moderation in the Biden years. They hit what would seem to be his first level preferences on US-China economic competition and a carefully worded "America First" AI education scheme.
I am really getting tired of people using the phrase "clear, common-sense". In EY's words, I think it's a 'stop' word. It's supposed to stop any thought about the actual complexities involved or in making real tradeoffs... In the openAI document, it's particularly annoying, since it's basically saying "no regulations" which are the only possible "common-sense" approaches to AI regulation. Ugh.
I don't understand this "Do you hear yourselves? The mask on race and jingoism could not be more off, or firmly attached, depending on which way you want to set up your metaphor."
It seems to me China is a real risk, and a real threat to freedom and democratic values. (Which is NOT at all to say I trust OpenAI with that, or even our own government... Just that I trust China (broadly) even less.)
If OpenAI achieves AGI/ASI, it very well could be a winner-take-all situation. It is by no means a zero-sum game, and China would (ideally) have access to these tools (or some "restricted" version)...
Initial thought: I would have splurged for an actual artist to draw the cover of the blueprint, not used a DALL-E generation.
AI economic zones should also allow you to build apartments. For AI
and while we are at it, just create an 'economic zone' where there is basically zero government regulation for anything and we can build and make the future better
nerds getting outsmarted by sociopaths, name a more iconic duo
But but the nerds get to work for the current “it” company. It impresses their friends and helps them get chicks.
Note - your nested responses are still labeled 1/2/3 instead of a/b/c
For me they are correct on the web, but show up as all numbers on the substack app and in my RSS reader. This is always the case with DWATV lists. No idea why. My only advice is to switch to the web for these big nested-list-style posts, if you can.
I don't know what to do about this - the Substack app is broken in several ways, not only this.
Ah that did it, thanks
Regarding the jingoist bravado, I suspect this is intended for an audience of one.
Podcast episode for this post:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dwatvpodcast/p/on-the-openai-economic-blueprint
> When we get down to the actual asks in the document, a majority of them I actually agree with, and most of them are reasonable, once I was able to force myself to read the words intended to have meaning.
The movement for an AI pause was a total failure with both policy makers and the general public. That was a signal to the rationalist/AI safety community that they do not speak *or even understand* the language commonly used in these discussions.
Focus on the content of the proposals, and aggressively down weight the emotional response provoked by the form and the language. This community is not the intended audience, and the language this community would find congenial and persuasive would be very ineffective at reaching the intended audience.
This document just reads like a set of completely generic, mundane statements to me. Yeah we should consider all stakeholders and the impact on blah blah blah.
Could this be the rise of the Fnords?
I suspect the wording of these proposals would be extremely different if Kamala was president.
Also I noted, how they mentioned talent quite a bit to ensure American dominance, but never talked about immigration, avoiding attracting any ire from the current administration
I would say this is just putting another mask on, palatable to the new president. Just like Zuck going on Rogan to discuss his deeply hidden reservations over content moderation in the Biden years. They hit what would seem to be his first level preferences on US-China economic competition and a carefully worded "America First" AI education scheme.
I am really getting tired of people using the phrase "clear, common-sense". In EY's words, I think it's a 'stop' word. It's supposed to stop any thought about the actual complexities involved or in making real tradeoffs... In the openAI document, it's particularly annoying, since it's basically saying "no regulations" which are the only possible "common-sense" approaches to AI regulation. Ugh.
I don't understand this "Do you hear yourselves? The mask on race and jingoism could not be more off, or firmly attached, depending on which way you want to set up your metaphor."
It seems to me China is a real risk, and a real threat to freedom and democratic values. (Which is NOT at all to say I trust OpenAI with that, or even our own government... Just that I trust China (broadly) even less.)
If OpenAI achieves AGI/ASI, it very well could be a winner-take-all situation. It is by no means a zero-sum game, and China would (ideally) have access to these tools (or some "restricted" version)...
What am I missing?