"The company has said they are integrating the superalignment team with other research teams in statements to the media."
How do you know they are doing that? Because they say they are? The people who left the company used to work for OpenAI, and you don't want me to take their word about safety. Why should I trust the remaining staff, wi…
"The company has said they are integrating the superalignment team with other research teams in statements to the media."
How do you know they are doing that? Because they say they are? The people who left the company used to work for OpenAI, and you don't want me to take their word about safety. Why should I trust the remaining staff, with all their stock options to think of?
"I'm not sure there's a lot of concrete evidence that OAI has been trivializing safety concerns, other than claims from people who were fired or resigned"
What concrete evidence would you expect to see? Statements from people worrying about safety who were not fired?
If OpenAI and some of its former employees and board members are calling each other dishonest, that means that some of them have been lying to each other or to us. If the former colleagues call each other liars, then clearly, some of them are liars.
I don't see why you are so keen to jump to the assumption that the people who are damaging their own stock options must the the liars.
You said above that: "When the post-mortem reports were written about both the Columbia and Challenger Space Shuttle Disasters, investigators found that safety-focused teams had raised concerns about the problems that led to the crashes (insulation foam shedding in Columbia’s case; the infamous O-ring in the case of Challenger). However, they were ignored"
Now when members of a safety team are raising concerns you say they should be ignored, because management has said that everything is fine.
Where did I say anyone should be ignored? I don’t believe I said that! I think I said that claims from disgruntled employees don’t update my model of this situation much, and wrote an article about why I think the move to disband this team was probably healthy. The fact that I am writing about the situation would seem to be fairly obvious evidence that I don’t think it should be ignored.
Concrete evidence would include a single example, anywhere on earth, of a model behaving in the ways that x-riskers hypothesize. That would be a start.
I’m happy to debate, but I don’t appreciate attempts at gotchas.
"The company has said they are integrating the superalignment team with other research teams in statements to the media."
How do you know they are doing that? Because they say they are? The people who left the company used to work for OpenAI, and you don't want me to take their word about safety. Why should I trust the remaining staff, with all their stock options to think of?
"I'm not sure there's a lot of concrete evidence that OAI has been trivializing safety concerns, other than claims from people who were fired or resigned"
What concrete evidence would you expect to see? Statements from people worrying about safety who were not fired?
If OpenAI and some of its former employees and board members are calling each other dishonest, that means that some of them have been lying to each other or to us. If the former colleagues call each other liars, then clearly, some of them are liars.
I don't see why you are so keen to jump to the assumption that the people who are damaging their own stock options must the the liars.
You said above that: "When the post-mortem reports were written about both the Columbia and Challenger Space Shuttle Disasters, investigators found that safety-focused teams had raised concerns about the problems that led to the crashes (insulation foam shedding in Columbia’s case; the infamous O-ring in the case of Challenger). However, they were ignored"
Now when members of a safety team are raising concerns you say they should be ignored, because management has said that everything is fine.
Where did I say anyone should be ignored? I don’t believe I said that! I think I said that claims from disgruntled employees don’t update my model of this situation much, and wrote an article about why I think the move to disband this team was probably healthy. The fact that I am writing about the situation would seem to be fairly obvious evidence that I don’t think it should be ignored.
Concrete evidence would include a single example, anywhere on earth, of a model behaving in the ways that x-riskers hypothesize. That would be a start.
I’m happy to debate, but I don’t appreciate attempts at gotchas.