A German bookseller claims there is a softcover (Taschenbuch) version available for preorder: https://www.thalia.de/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1075128502

Is that correct? It does not seem to be available on any US website.

When you visit the website for PauseAI, you might find some very steep proposals for Pausing AI [...] (I could train one)

Their website is probably outdated. I read their proposals as “keep the current level of AI, regulate stronger AI”. Banning current LLaMA models seems silly from an x-risk perspective, in hindsight. I think PauseAI is perfectly fine with pausing “too early”, which I personally don't object to.

If you look at the kind of claims that PauseAI makes in their risks page

PauseAI is clearly focused on x-risk. The risks page seems like an attempt to guide the general public from naively-realistic "Present dangers" slowly towards introducing (exotic-sounding) x-risk. You can disagree with that approach, of course. I would disagree that mixing AI Safety and AI Ethics is being "very careless about truth".

Thank you for answering my question! I wanted to know what you people think about PauseAI, so this fits well.

[...] in this respect the discourse around PauseAI seems unexceptionable and rather predictable.

Yes. I hope we can be better at coordination... I would frame PauseAI as "the reasonable [aspiring] mass-movement". I like that it is easy to support or join PauseAI even without having an ML PhD. StopAI is an organization more radical than them.

Thank you for responding!

A: Yeah. I'm mostly positive about their goal to work towards "building the Pause button". I think protesting against "relatively responsible companies" makes a lot of sense when these companies seem to use their lobbying power more against AI-Safety-aligned Governance than in favor of it. You're obviously very aware of the details here.

B: I asked my question because I'm frustrated with that. Is there a way for AI Safety to coordinate a better reaction?

C:

There does not seem to be a legible path to prevent possible existential risks from AI without slowing down its current progress.

I phrased that a bit sharply, but I find your reply very useful:

Obviously P(doom | no slowdown) < 1. Many people's work reduces risk in both slowdown and no-slowdown worlds, and it seems pretty clear to me that most of them shouldn't switch to working on increasing P(slowdown).^[1] 

These are quite strong claims! I'll take that as somewhat representative of the community. My attempt at paraphrasing: It's not (strictly?) necessary to slow down AI to prevent doom. There is a lot of useful AI Safety work going on that is not focused on slowing/pausing AI. This work is useful even if AGI is coming soon.

1. ^{^}

    it seems pretty clear to me that most of them shouldn't switch to working on increasing P(slowdown).

   Saying "PauseAI good" does not take a lot of an AI Safety researcher's time.