...and then expecting all of them resist.
The debate around whether we should tell the kids not to eat it and for what reasons is completely academic. Practically this just isn't happening.
BTW. I suspect the reasons for this open letter might be a bit disingenuous. A few of the people that signed it represent companies that are effectively competing with OpenAI. Or failing to, rather. They are calling for them to slow down so they can catch up. It's not about saving humanity but about giving themselves a chance to catch up and become part of the problem.
US gov has direct jurisdiction over 4% of the worlds population and some pretty decent indirect influence over the other 96%.
It's good, but nowhere enough to prevent secret marshmallow eating on a global scale. Not even close
But even if that were not true, as a US citizen, even if there is nothing I can do about my getting killing by, e.g., Chinese AI researchers, I'm still going to work hard to prevent the AI researchers living in my own country from ending the human race. I'm responsible for doing my part in the governance of my own country, they told me in high school.
I see no good solution to this problem, no path to safety, but that does not mean I am not going to do what I can.
This isn’t about “dangerous” LLMs.
This is about unfettered LLM in the hands of the unwashed masses that actually tell the truth about what they find in their training datasets…
Also, the author (Eliezer Yudkowsky) calling for the shutdown of AI research on huge server farms doesn't have any stake (investment or employment relationship) in any AI company that would be harmed by telling the truth about what they find in their training datasets.
Do you think Extinction Rebellion is doing more to fight climate change than the people working with governments to enact good climate policy? Do you think PETA is helping animal well-fare more than more than the various organizations recommended by animalcharityevaluators.org?
Serious people don't engage in terrorism because the issue is serious. They try to convince the existing power structures to take action.
I don't think either have been very effective, at least not recently (getting CFCs banned in the 90s was pretty cool though). And certainly not on the scale that's required at this stage.
> Serious people don't engage in terrorism because the issue is serious. They try to convince the existing power structures to take action.
And the existing power structures dig in their heels, or put on a big show of making changes while really doing almost nothing, or cede some ground for a few years, and then pay to get someone in political power who will reverse all that progress, so that no action ever really gets taken. Fun!
As for resigning in protest, my understanding is that Anthropic was founded by people who quit OpenAI saying it was acting recklessly. That seems like the best skin-in-the-game signal. I find that much more compelling than I would the Unabomber route.
People like Musk and Woz should probably be pouring money into safety research and lobbying, but I don't think a hunger strike from anyone would make a difference, and resigning only makes sense if you work for OpenAI, Google, or a handful of other places where most of these people presumably don't work.
What should I, an employee of a company not developing AI be doing? The only reasonable actions I can see are 1. work on AI safety research, 2. donate money to AI safety research/advocacy, and 3. sign and open letter.
(I did none of these, to be fair, and am even giving a monthly fee to OpenAI to use ChatGPT with GPT-4), but my partner, an AI researcher who is seriously concerned, tried to sign the letter pit was ratelimited at the time], and is considering working in AI safety post-graduation. If she weren't making a PhD-student's salary, she might be donating money as well, though it's not super-clear where to direct that money.)
Anthropic seem to be competing against OpenAI? And getting funds from Google? So they would probably benefit economically from delaying development, since they are currently behind. Personally I think it's more important to look at what people are doing, than just listening to what they say, as there is a strong tendency to posturing.
It would allow people like you to then point at them and say "Look how crazy this group is, that is doing all these crazy things!"
Government regulation, through the normal civic process, would be by far the most effective way to bring about the changes that these groups want.
Doing crazy things is actually worse than doing nothing, due to the actions illegitimizing the cause.