Well what would you say it depends on? Part of the COVID response was that we got lucky and the virus wasn’t as bad as it could have been. Had it been worse, the general response could have been better.
Here, it seems like the public sentiment is that AI is a net negative and that reacting to it would be a good option. If a good portion of the public agrees that we’ve pulled something much more dangerous than COVID out of the urn, how could this be analogous?
And then there's the fact that if we have to Pause again, AI will almost necessarily be more dange...
I'm not sure I'd agree with your definition of success in trial runs. First, because the average response to how we handled COVID won't generalize to viruses that are substantially more dangerous. If AI is paused and development continues, there will almost necessarily be larger risk in the larger capacity. If it's substantially stronger than it was when it was initially paused, then it's like comparing the COVID response to a hypothetical virus that's visually much more dangerous - if it looked like the black death and there were videos of people passing ... (read more)