Proponents may be hedging by running contradictory strategies simultaneously
“Oh yes, I Take AI VERY Seriously, and now let me present you my five point plan to use the AI industry’s profits to finance enormous new social welfare programs while also literally banning the construction of the facilities the AI industry requires to make profits.”
@deanwball Seems like he can try multiple contradictory approaches and expect only one will work.
“Oh yes, I Take AI VERY Seriously, and now let me present you my five point plan to use the AI industry’s profits to finance enormous new social welfare programs while also literally banning the construction of the facilities the AI industry requires to make profits.”
if there were such a thing as a prominent accelerationist politician, and he proposed policies so wildly contradictory as this, safetyists would be all over the place declaring that his incoherence signaled strategic unseriousness. Indeed, Trump kind of is one, and safetyists do this all the time (I even agree sometimes that the administration’s policy strategy has fundamental incoherence!). I think there has been a remarkable willingness by safetyists to lower their epistemic standards because of these faux amis.
@deanwball Seems like he can try multiple contradictory approaches and expect only one will work.
Proponents may be hedging by running contradictory strategies simultaneously
“Oh yes, I Take AI VERY Seriously, and now let me present you my five point plan to use the AI industry’s profits to finance enormous new social welfare programs while also literally banning the construction of the facilities the AI industry requires to make profits.”
Users are reacting to a critic mocking plans to tax AI profits for welfare while banning data centers, with some praising the term 'Doomer grandpa' as clever while others call accelerationists dumb for opposing all regulation.