I think in this analogy the narrow AI models would be like texting your parents instead of flying to see them. Obviously not as good as visiting them in person, but you avoid the 10% x-risk. I think Rob is saying let's make sure we don't stop the development of texting/calling as collateral.
So yes, don't get on the plane, but let's be very specific about what we're trying to avoid.
There seems to be a trade-off in policy-space between attainability and nuance (part of what this whole dialogue seems to be about). The point I was trying to make here is that the good of narrow AI is such a marginal gain relative to the catastrophic ruin of superintelligent AI that it's not worth being "very specific" at the cost of potentially weaker messaging for such a benefit.
Policy has adversarial pressure on it, so it makes sense to minimize the surface area if the consequence of a breach (e.g. "this is our really cool and big ai that's technically a narrow ai and which just happens to be really smart at lots of things...") is catastrophic.
I think in this analogy the narrow AI models would be like texting your parents instead of flying to see them. Obviously not as good as visiting them in person, but you avoid the 10% x-risk. I think Rob is saying let's make sure we don't stop the development of texting/calling as collateral.
So yes, don't get on the plane, but let's be very specific about what we're trying to avoid.