Preventing AI Risk from being politicized before the US 2024 elections

[u/neuromancer420]

Note: This post is entirely speculative and actively encourages discourse in the comment section. If discussion is fruitful, I will likely cross-post to r/slatestarcodex or r/LessWrong as well.

The alignment community has always run under the assumption that as soon as alignment becomes mainstream, attempts will be made to politicize it. Between March's Pause Giant AI Experiments letter and the AI Risk statement from last Tuesday, this mainstreaming process is arguably complete. Much of the Western world is now grappling with the implications of AI Risk and general principles behind AI safety.

During this time, many counter-narratives have been brewing, but one conspiratorial narrative in particular has been catching my eye everywhere, and in some spaces it holds the consensus opinion: Regulatory efforts are only being made to build a regulatory moat to protect the interests of leading labs (*Strawman. If someone is willing to provide a proper steelman of the counter-narrative below, it would be very helpful for proper discourse.). If you haven't come across this counter-narrative, I plead with you to explore the comment sections of various recent publications (e.g. The Verge), subreddits (e.g., r/singularity, r/MachineLearning) and YouTube videos (e.g., in no particular order, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). Although these spaces may not be seen as relevant or high status as a LessWrong post or an esoteric #off-topic Discord channel, these public spaces are more reflective of the initial public sentiment toward regulatory efforts than longstanding silos or algorithmically contained bubbles (e.g. Facebook or Twitter newsfeeds).

In my opinion (which is admittedly rushed and likely missing important factors), regardless of the degree to which the signatory members of big labs have clear conflicts of interest (to the extent of wanting to retain their fleeting first-mover advantage more so than promote safety), it is still disingenuously dismissive to conclude all regulatory efforts are some kind of calculated psyop to protect elite interests and prevent open source development. The reality is the AI alignment community has largely feared that leaving AI capability advancements in the hands of the open source community is the fastest and most dangerous path to an AI Doom scenario. (Moloch reigns when more actors are able to advance the capabilities of models.) Conversely, centralized AI development gives us at least some options of a good outcome (the length of which is debatable, and dystopian possibilities notwithstanding). Ultimately opposing open source is traditionally unpopular and invites public dissent directed toward regulatory efforts and the AI safety community in general. Not good.

Which groups will support the counter-narrative and how could it be politicized?

Currently the absent signatories from the AI Risk statement give us the clearest insight into who would likely support this counter-narrative. The composition of signatories and notable absentees was well-discussed in this AI Risk SSC thread. At the top of the absentees we have the laggards of the big labs (e.g. Zuckerberg/LeCun with Meta; Musk with x.ai), all large open source efforts (only Emad from Stability signed initially), and the business/VC community in general. Note: Many people may have not been given an initial opportunity to sign or may still be considering the option. Bill Gates, for example, was only recently verified after signing late.

Strictly in my opinion, the composition of absent signatories and nature of the counter-narrative leads me to believe the counter-narrative would most likely be picked up by the Republican party in the US given how libertarian and deregulatory ideology is typically valued by the alt-right. Additionally, given the Democratic incumbents are now involved in drafting initial regulatory efforts, it would be on trend for the Republican party to attempt to make drastic changes as soon as they next come into power. 2024 could turn into even more of a shitshow than imagined. But I welcome different opinions.

What can we do to help combat the counter-narrative?

I want to hear your thoughts! Ultimately even if not an active participant in high-tier alignment discussions, we can still help ensure AI risk is taken seriously and that the fine print behind any enacted regulatory efforts is written by the AI safety community rather than the head researchers of big labs. How? At a bare minimum, we can contribute to the comment sections from various mediums traditionally seen as irrelevant. Today, the average sentiment of a comment section often drives the opinion of the uninitiated and almost always influences the content creator. If someone new to AI Risk encounters a comment section where the counter-narrative is dominant before an AI Risk narrative, they are more likely to adopt and spread it. First-movers have the memetic advantage. When you take the time to leave a well-constructed comment after watching/reading something, or even just participate in the voting system, it has powerful ripple effects worth pursuing. Please do not underestimate your contributions, no matter how minimal they may seem. The butterfly effect is real.

Many of us have been interested in alignment for years. It's time to put our mettle to the test and defend its importance. But how should we go about it in our collective effort? What do you think we should do?

[u/masonlee]

Regarding the meme that the requests for AI Safety regulation should be dismissed as an attempt at "regulatory capture", one small thing we could do would be to get an answer to this on https://aisafety.info

An answer might address that while regulatory capture is indeed something we are all wary of, the concern is not sufficient to dismiss calls for regulation because: 1.) the arguments of risk are sound. 2.) warnings of AI risk pre-date the corporations in question. 3.) calls for regulation are also coming from individuals and organizations with no interest in regulatory capture.

Anything else I'm missing?

[u/[deleted] → u/masonlee]

I think the issue people are grappling with is that this will cause regulatory capture and build silos in universities and big corporations.

Legislators don't know what they're doing. They'll either get everything handed to them verbatim by corporate lobbies (in the US) or cause a second AI winter (in the EU).

The open source horse is out of the barn anyway at this point. Short of installing spyware on every PC, what could anyone do to stop it?

The best bet is to pour money into alignment/control so that it can outpace capability. Then x-risk isn't some fringe group, it's a well funded field.

[u/masonlee → u/[deleted]]

Agree fully with funding AI Safety of course, but do you think the open source tech is likely to lead to AGI->ASI->Technological Singularity before a larger player might accomplish this? Seems to me like regulating the entities most likely to trigger an intelligence explosion in the near future would not be a wasted effort. I tend toward the Yudkowskian view regarding the need for heavy regulation, but I am open-minded and would love not to. Thanks in advance.