(Short writeup for the sake of putting the idea out there)

AI x-risk people often compare coordination around AI to coordination around nukes. If we ignore military applications of AI and restrict ourselves to misalignment, this seems like a weird analogy to me:

  • With technical AI safety we're primarily thinking about accident risks, whereas nukes are deliberately weaponized.
  • Everyone can agree that we don't want nuclear accidents, so why can't everyone agree we don't want AI accidents? I think the standard response here is "everyone w
... (read more)
Showing 3 of 21 replies (Click to show all)

Yeah, nuclear power is a better analogy than weapons, but I think the two are linked, and the link itself may be a useful analogy, because risk/coordination is affected by the dual-use nature of some of the technologies.

One thing that makes non-proliferation difficult is that nations legitimately want nuclear facilities because they want to use nuclear power, but 'rogue states' that want to acquire nuclear weapons will also claim that this is their only goal. How do we know who really just wants power plants?

And power generation comes with its ow... (read more)

3rohinmshah8moI'm uncertain about weaponization of AI (and did say "if we ignore military applications" in the OP).
1capybaralet8moOops, missed that, sry.

AI Alignment Open Thread August 2019

by habryka 1 min read4th Aug 201996 comments


Ω 12

Crossposted from the AI Alignment Forum. May contain more technical jargon than usual.

This is an experiment in having an Open Thread dedicated to AI Alignment discussion, hopefully enabling researchers and upcoming researchers to ask small questions they are confused about, share very early stage ideas and have lower-key discussions.