"Holly Elmore and Rob Miles dialogue on AI Safety Advocacy" by jacobjacob, Robert Miles & Holly_Elmore
Oct 23, 2023
auto_awesome
Holly Elmore, organizer of AI Pause protests, and Rob Miles, AI Safety YouTuber, explore the effectiveness of protests, the role of activists in technological advancements, the misconception of technical work, the clash between advocacy and truth-seeking, the importance of rationality, and the significance of advocacy in AI safety.
Advocacy requires a different style of communication to convey broad policy aims and raise awareness.
The balance between risks and benefits of AI development and the need to shift the burden of proof towards safety are key points of discussion in AI safety advocacy.
Deep dives
Advocacy and the Complexity of Communication
The podcast episode delves into the differences between communicating scientific or technical ideas and engaging in advocacy. It is emphasized that advocacy requires a different style of communication due to the limited bandwidth and the need to convey broad policy aims. The challenges of effectively communicating nuanced messages in advocacy are also discussed, as well as the potential misinterpretation of slogans. However, despite the difficulties, advocacy is seen as a powerful tool to raise awareness and shift the burden of proof regarding AI safety. It is acknowledged that while precise details may be ambiguous, advocating for a pause on AI development and deployment can effectively convey the importance of ensuring safety.
The Trade-off between Risks and Benefits
A key point of discussion is the balance between the risks and benefits of AI development. It is acknowledged that there are safety concerns surrounding AI, but some argue that these concerns are not unique to AI and can be managed through the normal process of technology development and response. On the other hand, advocates for a pause on AI emphasize the magnitude of capabilities and potential consequences of unforeseen problems with AGI. The idea of advocating for caution and the need to shift the burden of proof from proving AI is dangerous to proving it is safe are highlighted. The potential trade-off between delaying AI development for increased safety is also discussed, with the majority of people favoring a risk-averse approach.
The Role of Advocacy and its Challenges
The podcast explores the role of advocacy in the context of AI safety. It is argued that advocacy can bring attention to important issues and create support for research and safety measures. The challenges of advocacy are discussed, including the difficulty of navigating political dynamics, the lack of feedback loops to test models against reality, and the risk of oversimplifying messages to make them more persuasive. The tensions between proponents of technical solutions and those advocating for political and advocacy approaches are acknowledged, with the importance of both perspectives recognized. The need for more individuals engaging in advocacy and the potential for different communication styles to convey the same message are also highlighted.
The Value and Limitations of Advocacy
The podcast delves into the value and limitations of advocacy efforts in the AI safety field. It is argued that advocacy can be an effective way to raise awareness, create change, and influence public opinion. Different approaches to advocacy, such as protests, are discussed, along with the challenges of conveying complex messages in a concise and persuasive manner. The podcast highlights the importance of combining technical research with advocacy efforts, as both play crucial roles in addressing AI safety. The need for a diversity of voices and a broader range of opinions within the AI safety community is also emphasized.
Holly is an independent AI Pause organizer, which includes organizing protests (like this upcoming one). Rob is an AI Safety YouTuber. I (jacobjacob) brought them together for this dialogue, because I've been trying to figure out what I should think of AI safety protests, which seems like a possibly quite important intervention; and Rob and Holly seemed like they'd have thoughtful and perhaps disagreeing perspectives.
Also, the dialogue is quite long, and I think it doesn't have to be read in order. You should feel free to skip to the section title that sounds most interesting to you.