clickyquack

TL;DR: We’ll probably be getting more AI safety incidents, so amplify the ones that would justify or highlight the urgency of your preferred policy solutions even from a non-technical skeptic concerned with national security’s perspective, as these will be far more effective than anything else. Feeling the Crisis Strong policy change happens most effectively when the attributed problem is felt enough to warrant the perceived costs of the proposed solution. Many relevant precedents to AI governance can be viewed through this lens: * What led to the rapid establishment of the IAEA and NPT, in spite of the costs endured by doing so? It’s because the effects of nuclear war and threat of mutually assured destruction had just been felt by everyone, so they had better make sure it never happens again.[1] * How did we enact such strong enforcement measures for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic so rapidly? It’s because decisionmakers felt the rapid spread, the climbing death toll, the general feeling of uncertainty surrounding how bad it was going to be, and the established experts sounding the alarm on what ought to be done, enough to warrant using their authority to invoke emergency measures taken. Why did we underprioritize stronger pandemic prevention and even roll-back some pandemic response measures afterward? It’s because people felt the negative impacts of the lockdown mandates far more than the pandemic itself or the impacts counterfactually not experienced as a result, leaving many people overcorrecting towards general opposition to pandemic-response measures. * Why is there still no law mandating nucleic acid screening, so as to ensure someone trying to order a virus from a nucleic acid synthesis company would be caught and stopped before they could do so? Seriously, this is essentially unanimously supported, has had advocacy for decades, including by the industry themselves and especially recently, and yet the bill that could solve this has been waiting in c