Matthew Barnett

[Robin Hanson @robinhanson]

3 args given to me re why treat AI descendants different: (a) they not conscious (b) human DNA holds special values (c) AIs make social change too fast. None of these work for me.
https://t.co/cRsye0NQXg

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@frances__lorenz Can you name anyone who holds this view? I think the more common view is that scientific knowledge is extremely valuable because it helps us achieve other goals, such as creating better medicine.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@NunoSempere I already have a very large fraction of my net worth tied up in AI-related bets. I don't feel the need to reallocate much of it to this bet in particular.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@justjoshinyou13 Why not operationalize this in terms of total revenue instead? I assume the public would be willing to pay at least trillions of dollars for access to superintelligence.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

How can we adjudicate whether an intelligence explosion "happened" or not?

If almost all of us are still alive, with real GDP growth below 5%, no molecular nanobots, no von Neumann probes launched, and no cure for Alzheimer's, is that consistent with it having "happened"?

[Daniel Kokotajlo @DKokotajlo]

Unfortunately, it seems like the intelligence explosion will be happening in 2027 after all. Most of this post analyzes the new METR report (though other sources of evidence are also important). If they’re right, that implies an AI-driven acceleration that is 5 months ahead of the AI 2027 scenario. I am scared, sad, and angry. https://t.co/7KWmdc6AZk

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@MariusHobbhahn @soundboy > safety progress is extremely far behind capabilities progress

What is the empirical content of this claim?

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

And by molecular nanobots I mean the ambitious Drexlerian nanomachines that can self-replicate and build almost anything atom by atom.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@panickssery @tamaybes Of course, one way out of this is to claim that we need increasingly strong and extreme regulations over time.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@panickssery @tamaybes That might still be okay if the government intervention is weak, since they'd have to attribute our survival to weak government action, which undermines the case for a stronger response.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@dhadfieldmenell @GuiveAssadi I do think repealing Section 230 protections would straightforwardly abridge the freedom of speech, though I recognize that, legally speaking, few scholars believe that removing these protections would be unconstitutional.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@keigaanx @EgeErdil2 @KelseyTuoc @mmjukic I mostly just don't share the core assumptions behind most of the pro-export-control arguments (e.g., how bad it would be if China developed AI first, or whether we are in a short, critical period when we need to secure an advantage over China).

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@keigaanx @EgeErdil2 @KelseyTuoc @mmjukic I find the case for export controls to be even weaker than for tariffs, since tariffs at least raise revenue and probably don't meaningfully elevate the risk of a big war with China.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@keigaanx @EgeErdil2 @KelseyTuoc @mmjukic National security was central to the Trump administration's legal defense of the IEEPA tariffs, so the analogy works fine. Of course, in both cases, I disagree with the government's position.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@eccentric1ty I think AI is much more likely to save billions of people from death and empower them, so I'm happy to proceed.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@keigaanx @EgeErdil2 @KelseyTuoc @mmjukic I'm sympathetic to Huang here because I do think the government is wrong. I see it as similar to if a corporation were caught violating one of Trump's tariffs. I think the policy is really bad so I don't care much when people violate it.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@keigaanx @EgeErdil2 @KelseyTuoc @mmjukic The government is often wrong about such things, e.g. whether invading Iraq would promote national security.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@keigaanx @EgeErdil2 @KelseyTuoc @mmjukic I think there's an important distinction between what endangers national security and what endangers the government's interests.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@KelseyTuoc @mmjukic Him saying "nobody can explain X" almost certainly just means X is false. He's not saying no one has ever argued for X. Calling him a liar over this is a stretch.

[Matthew Barnett @MatthewJBar]

@KelseyTuoc @mmjukic You never explained how this endangers national security. You just said the US government believes it does, and then insulted him.