New survey: 46% of Americans are concerned about extinction from AI; 69% support a six-month pause in AI development

The way the question is framed provides information about "1000 technology leaders" who have signed a letter in favor of the pause but does not mention any opposition to the pause. I think this would push respondents to favor the pause. Ideal question construction would present more neutrally with both support and oppose statements.

[-]Lech Mazur2y30

YouGov's answer to these concerns: https://today.yougov.com/topics/technology/articles-reports/2023/04/14/ai-nuclear-weapons-world-war-humanity-poll

"Even with all those changes, results on concern over AI's potential to end humanity were almost identical to the first poll: 18% of U.S. adult citizens are very concerned and 28% are somewhat concerned about AI ending the human race; 10% think it's impossible. (Another poll asking the same question, conducted by Conjointly, got similar results.)"

[-]Ulisse Mini2y10

Strong upvoted and agreed. I don't think the public has opinions on AI X-Risk yet, so any attempt to elicit them will entirely depend on framing.

[-]jacob_cannell2y112

The real question is of course - at what cost?

The most straightforward way to enforce/ensure a pause would be to shut down the flow of high end chips from TSMC (and then competitors). But it seems very unlikely we'd get China to comply voluntarily, and would be basically the opposite of current policy with the chips act. So taking that route would entail reversing the chips act, going far more extreme on blocking china's chip supply chain, and perhaps even provoking a foundry-targeting war with china.

Any sort of software pause seems much harder to actually enact/enforce.