= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on How can I reduce existential risk from AI? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (92)
Looking many existing risky technologies the consumers and governments are the safety regulators, and manufacturers mostly cater to their demands. Consider the automobile industry, the aeronautical industry and the computer industry for examples.
Unfortunately, AGI isn't a "risky technology" where mostly is going to cut it in any sense, including adhering to expectations for safety regulation.
All the more reason to use resources effectively. Relatively few safety campaigns have attempted to influence manufacturers. What you tend to see instead are F.U.D. campaigns and neagtive marketing - where organisations attempt to smear their competitors by spreading negative rumours about their products. For example, here is Apple's negative marketing machine at work.
Are you suggesting that we encourage consumers to have safety demands? I'm not sure this will work. It's possible that consumers are to reactionary for this to be helpful. Also, I think AI projects will be dangerous before reaching the consumer level. We want AGI researchers to think safe before they even develop theory.
It isn't clear that influencing consumer awareness of safety issues would have much effect. However, it suggests that influencing the designers may not be very effective - they are often just giving users the safety level they are prepared to pay for.