Why didn't more people in AI safety call for a pause or stop earlier?
An AI pause/stop advocate argues that backing specific safety approaches was an easier career path than expressing broad skepticism about them.
TLDR
An AI pause/stop advocate argues that calling for a pause or stop early required doubting that any of numerous safety approaches, including RLHF and mechanistic interpretability, would prove feasible, safe and have a low enough “safety tax” in time. They also say it was easier to build a career supporting one or more of those approaches than expressing general skepticism.
Combined views
9.2K
2 Sources, first seen 6h ago