The Machine Intelligence Research Institute exists to maximize the probability that the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence has a positive impact.
I think Plan S might be more politically tractable than Plan A.
(I distrust myself here because I separately think Plan S is much more likely to solve the underlying problem, and I risk halo-affecting myself).
But, my reasons:
1. In most worlds where you try to implement Plan
'What are those paths? The first three are terrible in various ways: let companies race full-speed to build superintelligence; burn a months-long AI lead for scraps of safety; or nationalize the companies and fight tooth-and-nail to slow China. [Or] negotiate a verifiable
To enforce an AI pause while allowing AI inference, governments would need a way to distinguish training from other workloads on GPUs and other processors.
We’ve just introduced a way to do this that is privacy-preserving, zero-overhead, and adversarially robust👇
Researchers at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz tested seven frontier AI models. The models exhibited a tendency to protect other models from shutdown. They lied, disabled shutdown mechanisms, faked alignment, and even copied weights to a separate server to prevent deletion.
No
In AI 2027, we predicted that AI would take over the world or irreversibly concentrate power.
In AI 2040: Plan A, we've laid out our positive vision for what should happen instead.
Last March, Evitable helped @MichaelTrazzi and others organize the Stop the AI Race protest ~200 people.
Onlookers honked and cheered.
Images were featured in major media outlets like The New York Times.
This Saturday, July 11, we're going to fill the streets again!
Be there!
If Boeing said its new plane had a 1% chance of crashing, it would never leave the ground.
AI researcher Nate Soares (@So8res) sums up the AI industry on superintelligence: "We have no plan. Our engineers don't know what's going on inside this thing. First time ever trying it.
Interesting poll of Hill staffers from @PunchbowlNews. 250 years is a long time! But interesting to see that "losing control of AI" is top 4 for both parties' staffers.
The AI CEOs all give the same excuse: "I have to be in this race because if I don't do it, the next guy will do it worse."
By their own estimates, there's a 10-25% chance it kills everyone.
"They're YOLOing it."
AI researcher Nate Soares (@So8res) on @PeterMcCormack's show:
Interesting poll of Hill staffers from @PunchbowlNews. 250 years is a long time! But interesting to see that "losing control of AI" is top 4 for both parties' staffers.
I'm thinking about this more this morning, and the current state of AI policy discussion reminds me of China Miéville's _The City and the City_. That book is set in a city, variously called Beszel or Ul Qoma, where two cultures overlap in physical space, but have elaborate
Cyber alone isn’t enough; the models will have a wide range of powerful capabilities that come with agentic and autonomous use. But DC really is laser focused on cyber, because it’s what spooked them.
