Negative users criticized the AI risk letter as self-anointing elites issuing a vacuous statement that pushes stricter regulation without concrete policy details or sufficient expertise.
Based on 13 visible X reactions from 18 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
It’s not just the lack of specifics, which makes it utterly vacuous, it’s the self-anointing of a narrow set of elites as decision makers. There used to be a homeless guy who walked the streets of Chicago. They called him the Walking Man. I’d rather have him making decisions about AI than the folks who signed that statement. They lack the moral authority or the popular mandate to do such a thing. And the whole statement smacks of self-congratulation. That it came from academic economists is no surprise, as economists stand out as the most narcissistic of all academics, and that’s saying a lot.
Lots of papers on whether we should stop AI or not. Lots on broad governance ideas. But literally none on who should get access to frontier models and why. This is why this letter is important. I just wish it had pointed this out more clearly.
@Afinetheorem I think this is just a case of narcissism of small differences. Like this small criticism comes off as incredible pedantic to me. https://geekway.substack.com/p/why-i-didnt-sign-the-ai-open-letter
@Afinetheorem All good intentions. But it seems that allowing the edits of a specific very productive economist allowed doomerists to enlist all of you in their camp. Politically, you got played.
The joint statement urges immediate policy preparation for rapid job displacement.
It’s not just the lack of specifics, which makes it utterly vacuous, it’s the self-anointing of a narrow set of elites as decision makers. There used to be a homeless guy who walked the streets of Chicago. They called him the Walking Man. I’d rather have him making decisions about AI than the folks who signed that statement. They lack the moral authority or the popular mandate to do such a thing. And the whole statement smacks of self-congratulation. That it came from academic economists is no surprise, as economists stand out as the most narcissistic of all academics, and that’s saying a lot.
Lots of papers on whether we should stop AI or not. Lots on broad governance ideas. But literally none on who should get access to frontier models and why. This is why this letter is important. I just wish it had pointed this out more clearly.
@Afinetheorem I think this is just a case of narcissism of small differences. Like this small criticism comes off as incredible pedantic to me. https://geekway.substack.com/p/why-i-didnt-sign-the-ai-open-letter
@Afinetheorem All good intentions. But it seems that allowing the edits of a specific very productive economist allowed doomerists to enlist all of you in their camp. Politically, you got played.
@Afinetheorem It’s the self-appointed savior tone that offends me. No thanks, economists and techbros. I’d rather have almost anyone else design the future than that group.
@tutperson12 Yes. Absolutely.
I was asked to sign the economists' statement on AI. But this was the whole statement -- there was no policy suggestion or concrete idea here at all, besides "AI is important and we should think about it". I'd prefer to know what policies I'm recommending before I sign! https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/2077069426172825791/photo/1
I also signed. I don’t think economists should be more central than other social scientists, but I do think they have a role. https://twitter.com/erikbryn/status/2076674736860656083
Negative users criticized the AI risk letter as self-anointing elites issuing a vacuous statement that pushes stricter regulation without concrete policy details or sufficient expertise.
Based on 13 visible X reactions from 18 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
@tutperson12 Yes. Absolutely.
I was asked to sign the economists' statement on AI. But this was the whole statement -- there was no policy suggestion or concrete idea here at all, besides "AI is important and we should think about it". I'd prefer to know what policies I'm recommending before I sign! https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/2077069426172825791/photo/1