I don't see why restricting access to frontier models for consumers (not outsiders, who I think should have access) is bad for reaching an AI pause. It does lead to power concentration, but that seems like a separate issue? Please correct me.
Okay, that makes sense. I had a cached prior that {autoregressive LLMs can't continual-learnLLMs won't appear agentic enough to convince the public to pause before they crack CL} which seems much less likely given Anthropic's recent models. Thanks for helping me clear some cobwebs. :)
I think that, in isolation, this wouldn't significantly affect the change of a warning shot, but would make it more likely the public noticed it. The effect is probably pretty weak though.
(Updated thread to clarify that outsider advocates should have access, I'm curious about consumers as a separate thing.)
4Ryan Meservey
My own take on restricting consumer access as good is that--if the trend continues--it will send strong signals that the tech is unusable at scale due to safety concerns. This raises the probability that the AI bubble pops. I think there are futures where the bubble popping now would be bad, but I mostly think it would be good. Everything will depend on how the public would interpret the pop, with one group loudly proclaiming that this AI-stuff was a potemkin village built of hype and another group saying that AI is the real-deal and safety issues caused the pop.
Edit: Meh, on second thought, the safety concerns might dent the market case for AI but it would significantly strengthen the national security case for AI, so the government would most likely step in and fund the major labs regardless if the bubble really popped on safety concerns.