Anyone serious about this should participate in pacing the frontier by quitting their job so as to not potentially contribute to the problematic progress. Be the change you want to see!
Curious how that isn't what happens.
Curious how that isn't what happens.
There is no such possible binding rule either, a point that is so obvious that any smart person claiming otherwise is clearly up to something.
Failing to comply with what is in reality arms control is a widespread occurence. It's notable the only historical way to handle this (Schelling covered it at length) is tolerance of mutual espionage on a level that would simply not be tolerable to any of the groups involved.
I should add one of Schelling's other pet subjects was "time to weapon being viable". i.e. the distinction between a nuclear power and non-nuclear power isn't quite right, as there's a huge class of countries that could become so fairly fast if they were so inclined, and that this situation is somewhat inevitable. It is this that leads to efforts to denuclearize, even on a civilian level, "problematic" countries. You want to stop frontier AI and you'll have to be rolling back a lot of existing deployed technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#Notable_works
There are footnotes in "The Strategy of Conflict" containing more profound insight than whole books that are published today.
On this particular topic though "Strategy and Arms Control" is the one to go for.
We live in a society that has systems of market competition between companies and economic/military competition between countries. There's not just one country working on frontier AI, and not just a few companies in each country either. The incentives of these systems ensure AI advancement will happen quickly from here on out, no matter what, absent governmental action.
An individual researcher leaving the company does nothing, other than give their seat to someone else who likely doesn't share their same concerns.
Alternatively, using the influence they do have in their position to directly try to advance AI safety research, advocate for govt action, and make public arguments attempting to persuade the public to pressure the govt to act when they otherwise wouldn't be inclined is far more likely to impact things for the better.
No, it just comes across as "I want to get paid as if I was doing the thing I am employed to do by threatening you all about how terrible it would be if I actually did it".
They aren't even being semi imaginative and going on strike or anything.
Same logic goes for other common issues where personal responsibility is lauded. Obesity - real solutions are policy and medicine. Abortion - education and contraceptives.
If these frontier lab employees are actually sincere about wanting to do something about the risk of AI advancing faster than our ability to adapt to it, then what they should really be doing is lobbying their own employers to do something about it. Lead by example, and do something you have control over.
Lobbying the government to stop yourself from doing something bad(!!) can't be taken as a serious position - it can only be taken as a plea to get the competition (China - open weights) shut down. It makes no sense to claim that China is only keeping up by copying you, yet China, not yourself, is the problem.
Come on, go on strike then! Have a week of protest and picket the offices in SFO. Let's see what happens.
(I'm aware that's not quite what you meant, but it is the classic meaning of that phrase).
Unionization might be a little more effective.