Joshua Saxe
You don't have to be an AI risk denier to agree with @tylercowen's direction here you just need to take the controversial position that the tools of social science apply to AI safety as a discipline Respectfully to my computer science / hard science friends, this position actually does sometimes seem implicitly controversial in some conversations Some additional red hot takes: * Actual people make decisions to do cyber attacks and weigh economic, criminal, and geopolitical risks and opportunities in doing so * Actual people weigh the tradeoffs between investing lots of time/money/friction in securing the agents they're testing or using in production vs not, based on risk/reward calculations * Actual boards, CEOs, CISOs and policymakers decide how to dial cyber defense resourcing based on observed risk/reward signals * All of these people, and others, are operating in a complex adaptive system in response to new risks and opportunities and this system has proven more resilient than any system in history to past shocks People are saying Tyler hasn't taken a large enough AGI pill, etc. tbh i think his priors are just well calibrated. I think we will see "shocks" due to AI adoption in cyber - perhaps similar to the shock of autonomous weapons in warfare - and these will be costly but not catastrophic - but agree that the burden is on me to actually do the analysis
Andrew Curran
A proposal from Tyler Cowen to the safety camp.
