What I'm trying to say is that their inaction in unilaterally slowing development is consistent with their stated beliefs and requires no other motivation.
replyHave you looked at this backwards, though? Meaning: have you considered what it would look like if the motivations are actually just plain old money/power, but a set of stated beliefs needed to be constructed to justify what's being sought? I think these absurd beliefs make more sense that way.
replySure. I'm not saying that they have no other motivations. I'm saying that, even if they had no other motivation, they would still behave like this.
replyTip: Those motivations are not separate from the AI risk and do not mitigate it. They amplify the risk.
reply"Slow China down because our investment is at risk" is a perfectly reasonable position for a US company, and I don't mean that in any negative way.
replyWell yes, but then don't pretend that it's "because safety".
reply> multiple LLMs escape containment consistently, conspire with each other to hide from human oversight, show wanton regard for laws that stand in the way of their goals, and end up hacking dozens of different organizations
reply> “there’s no plausible way they’re concerned about safety”
> Cares about two things, A much more than B
reply> Someone points out that he pretends to only care about B
> Random commenter: "there's no plausible way we care about B"
Good chat.
You called it pretending to ask for slowdown based on safety concerns. Not my fault if that isn’t a complete description of your beliefs
reply