John Fogle

[John Fogle @johnmartinfogle]

Cambridge just created a Master's Degree in "Responsible AI", & is filling up quickly. This is an excellent opportunity & cred for those in AI research, development & acquisition!

Thank you @stephenjcave,@LeverhulmeCFI.

https://t.co/kX07n2AGDD

#AIEthics #artificialintelligence

[John Fogle @johnmartinfogle]

@bengoertzel @ESYudkowsky I often wonder about that "both concurrently" possibility-curious to see what the hybrid approach looks like. I could see one child going "all in" uploaded, possibly never to return or see them again; & I can still see the trad approach; but I wonder about that hybrid lifestyle.

[John Fogle @johnmartinfogle]

@KHayhoe I suppose you may have already presented this solution (I really do enthusiastically try to follow all posts, but have probably missed many), but is there a quick reference, at-a-glance, frequently updated Q&A sheet to facilitate said "talk about it" discussions?

[DoW Chief Digital & AI Office @CDAODoW]

The time has come to secure your spot for Advantage DoD 2024: Defense Data & AI Symposium! Registration is now open, check out our website to learn more:
https://t.co/CYgh6gTGU3
We hope to see you in February for #ADOD24
#AI #data #Analytics #decisionadvantage

[Special Competitive Studies Project @scsp_ai]

#SCSPTech Research and Analysis teams are divided into 6 panels: Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Defense, Economy, Society, and Future Platforms. We currently have open positions. If you are interested in joining our team, please send your information and resume to [email protected].

[John Fogle @johnmartinfogle]

@greg16676935420 @elonmusk Yes, yes, but WHY is he bringing these up now?

[Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh @S_OhEigeartaigh]

US public rejects AI competitive race rhetoric

[Rumtin @rumtin]

My piece on global AI governance is out! I paint a pragmatic yet optimistic path for how humanity can maximize the benefits of AI applications and distribute them as widely as possible, while mitigating harms and reducing risks as effectively as possible.
https://t.co/rPwhiFYZSV

[Future Intelligence @LeverhulmeCFI]

CFI's AI:FAR director @S_OhEigeartaigh co-authored recently released report (led by Robert Trager, Ben Harack, & Anka Reuel) on an int'l governance body to certify compliance with int'l standards on civilian AI with a focus on #AIsafety of frontier models. https://t.co/8LpMJsBZU3

[Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED) @ALLFEDALLIANCE]

We are hiring! #ALLFED is seeking a dynamic Director of Communications. In this key role, you'll develop and lead our multi-channel communications strategy and work with governments, media, and other stakeholders. Apply now at https://t.co/7YT3TpPC8r! #DirectorofCommunications

[Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh @S_OhEigeartaigh]

Big picture thinking from Martin Rees.

[Rumtin @rumtin]

I'm really proud to announce that I've launched a new organization, Global Shield, with my co-founders @ArielConn and Jared Brown. We advocate for government policy on global catastrophic risk. The risk is only growing, so Global Shield is about getting government to act.

[John Fogle @johnmartinfogle]

@tegmark There'll be so many shades of gray on individuals' acceptance of AI in their minds/lives. Some will be almost Amish and barely accept AI. Some will accept it to some marginal degree. Some will accept AI wholeheartedly. And it will be as simple as which app to download.

[John Fogle @johnmartinfogle]

@wyntingley @CJHandmer I wonder if they were products of that school, OR if that school received the products produced by their local environment? Just trying to appropriately determine attribution.

[John Fogle @johnmartinfogle]

Yes! Andrew makes excellent points on why/how to address preferences for AI's dominance over humanity (esp. in last part of #2).

Issues must be addressed early, incl other x-risks currently underestimated (justifiably or not) to get ahead of problems before they become imminent.

[Andrew Critch (🤖🩺🚀) @AndrewCritchPhD]

From my recollection, >5% of AI professionals I’ve talked to about extinction risk have argued human extinction from AI is morally okay, and another ~5% argued it would be a good thing. I've listed some of their views below. You may find it shocking or unbelievable that these

...views are fairly common in AI, but while I disagree with them, I think we should treat them with empathy and respect. Why? Reasons are further below.

These views are collected from the thousands of in-person conversations I’ve had about extinction risk, with hundreds of AI engineers, scientists, and professors, mostly spanning 2015-2023. Each is labeled with my rough recollection (r) of how common it seems to be, which add up to more than 10% because they overlap:

a) (r≈10%) AI will be morally superior to humans, either automatically due to its intelligence, or by design because we made it that way. The universe will be a better place if we let it replace us entirely.

b) (r≈5%) AIs will be humanity's "children" and it's morally good to be surpassed and displaced by one's children.

c) (r≈5%) Evolution is inevitable and should be embraced. AI will be more fit for survival than humans, so we should embrace that and just go extinct like almost all species eventually do.

d) (r≈3%) AI can be designed to survive without suffering, so it should replace all life in order to end suffering.

e) (r≈2%) The world is very unfair, but if everyone dies from AI it will be more fair, which overall makes me feel okay with it. Dying together is less upsetting than dying alone.

I firmly disagree with all five of these views.

So why do I think they deserve empathy and respect rather than derision? For three reasons:

1) (peaceful coexistence) As an AI researcher, my personal main priority is that humanity be allowed to survive. If we're jerks to each other about what future we want to see, we're more likely to end up racing or warring over it, and the resulting turmoil seems more likely to get us all killed than to save us.

2) (validity) Behind each of the views (a)-(e) above there is a morally defensible core of values. Those values deserve respect not only because they have valid points to make, but because they can come back to bite everyone later if left oppressed for a long time.

3) (compromisability) I also believe it's possible to find ways forward that are positive from many of the viewpoints and feelings hiding behind these pro-extinctionist views, without accepting extinction, but doing so requires understanding where they're coming from.

So do I think it’s wrong to feel outrage at these views?

No. If left unchecked and uncompromised, these views can literally get us all killed. I fully respect anyone's right to feel outrage at the level of risk humanity is currently facing down with AI.

However, know this: if we respond only with outrage and no empathy, we will be trodding on the emotions and motivations of a major contingent of extremely talented real people, and doing that might come back to bite you/us/everyone.

For an analogy, remember that many AI scientists knew for many years that AI was an extinction risk to humanity, but those worries were papered over by PR concerns, gaslighting about whether human-level AI is even possible to build, and general disrespect. Those years of dismissal and oppression culminated in a powerful backlash in the form of a public statement by many leading scientists and CEOs,
https://t.co/a6f9aJ351P,
which has since led to a legitimate spike in public panic and outrage. If you ask me, that whole process could have been a lot healthier, and would have left us in a safer world with less backlash and a steadier advancement of valuable products and services.

A similar and opposite backlash can occur if extinctionist or extinction-tolerant viewpoints are papered over for too long. Just imagine dismissing or oppressing a bunch of talented AI developers with values that have led them to feel that human extinction is okay. Now imagine what happens when those same talented people and/or the AI systems they’re developing find an opportunity to gain a lot more power in the world.

So should we respond to this hypothetical with fear?

Perhaps somewhat, but not at the expense of genuine empathy and respect for the morals behind it… otherwise we’re participating in a self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict. I believe we can find ways forward that attend to the values behind these extinctionist positions, and doing so is probably both morally better and also safer from a purely survivalist perspective. And, continuing to engage in respectful and open discourse is a way everyone can contribute to progress on these thorny issues.

Thanks for reading.

[John Fogle @johnmartinfogle]

@daniel_271828 IKR, Dan!? How scary it can become to continuously come to the "ah screw it" conclusion.

[Max Tegmark @tegmark]

A #NuclearWar has no winners:

[The White House 46 Archived @WhiteHouse46]

This Administration is committed to seizing the opportunities posed by Artificial Intelligence – but is also managing the risks to our society, our economy, and our national security.

[Ylli Bajraktari @Ylli_Bajraktari]

I signed my name to ensure that #AI safety is a priority. Check out the list of colleagues who are taking a stance to mitigate the advancement of AI's most severe risks: https://t.co/KIfXyodPl0