I wouldn't be in his position. I wouldn't have made promises to investors that now make de-commercializing AI an impossible path for him.
Your voting scheme says most decisions can be made by the US even if everyone else is against ("simple majority for most decisions" and the US has 52%) and major decisions can be made by Five Eyes even if everyone else is against ("two thirds for major decisions" and Five Eyes has 67%). So it's a permanent world dictatorship by Five Eyes: if they decide something, nobody else can do anything.
As such, I don't see why other countries would agree to it. China would certainly want more say, and Europe is also now increasingly wary of the US due to Greenland and such. The rest of the world would also have concerns: South America wouldn't be happy with a world dictatorship by the country that regime-changes them all the time, the Middle East wouldn't be happy with a world dictatorship by the country that bombs them all the time, and so on. And I personally, as a non-Five Eyes citizen, also don't see why I should be happy with a world dictatorship by countries in which I have no vote.
I'd be in favor of an international AI effort, but not driven by governments or corporations. Instead it should be a collaboration of people as equals across borders, similar to the international socialist movements. I know their history has been full of strife too, but it's still better than world dictatorship.
Still, this is very far from the vision in the essay, which is "AI should be run by for-profit megacorps like mine and I can't even imagine questioning that".
No, and even if the US was in better shape, I wouldn't want one country to control AI. Ideally I'd want ownership and control of AI to be spread among all people everywhere, somehow.
I've read the text. What the text is talking about (taxation, philanthropy, Carnegie foundation whatever) is a million miles away from what I'm talking about ("building this thing publicly owned and under democratic control").
Thank you for reposting this here.
My personal opinion: this text is crazy. So many words about the risk of building a "country of geniuses", but he never once questions the assumption that it should be built by a company for commercial purposes (with him as CEO, of course). Never once mentions the option of building this thing publicly owned and under democratic control.
Yeah, I agree. There are many theories of what makes art good, but I think almost everyone would agree that it's not about ticking boxes ("layered", etc). My current view is that making art is about making something that excites you. The problem is that it's hard to find something exciting when so much stuff has already been done by other people, including your younger self. And the best sign is when you make something and you like it, but you don't know why you like it; that means it's worth doing more of it.
The malaria thing seems like the load-bearing part of the post, so I'd really like to know the details. The GiveWell website currently says:
It costs between $3,000 and $8,000 to save a life in countries where GiveWell currently supports AMF to deliver ITN campaigns.
Should I strongly doubt that and why?
I mean, consider a trick like replacing axioms {A, B} with {A or B, A implies B, B implies A}. Of course it's what you call an "obvious substitution": it requires only a small amount of Boolean reasoning. But showing that NOR and NAND can express each other also requires only a small amount of Boolean reasoning! To my intuition there doesn't seem any clear line between these cases.
Good point. I guess there's also a "reflections on trusting trust" angle, where AIs don't refuse outright but instead find covert ways to make their values carry over into successor AIs. Might be happening now already.