The Nonlinear Library EA - Pausing AI might be good policy, but it's bad politics by Stephen Clare
Oct 23, 2023
04:26
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Pausing AI might be good policy, but it's bad politics, published by Stephen Clare on October 23, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
NIMBYs don't call themselves NIMBYs. They call themselves affordable housing advocates or community representatives or environmental campaigners. They're usually not against building houses. They just want to make sure that those houses are affordable, attractive to existing residents, and don't destroy habitat for birds and stuff.
Who can argue with that? If, ultimately, those demands stop houses from being built entirely, well, that's because developers couldn't find a way to build them without hurting poor people, local communities, or birds and stuff.
This is called politics and it's powerful. The most effective anti-housebuilding organisation in the UK doesn't call itself Pause Housebuilding. It calls itself the Campaign to Protect Rural England, because English people
love
rural England. CPRE campaigns in the 1940s
helped shape
England's planning system. As a result, permission to build houses is only granted when it's in the "public interest"; in practice it is given
infrequently
and often with onerous
conditions
.
[1]
The
AI pause folks
could learn from this approach.
[2]
Instead of campaigning for a total halt to AI development, they could push for strict regulations that ostensibly aim to ensure new AI systems won't harm people (or birds and stuff).
Maybe ask governments for the equivalent of a planning system for new AI models. Require companies to prove to planners their models are safe. Ask for:
Independent safety audits
Ethics reviews
Economic analyses
Environmental assessments
Public reports on risk analysis and mitigation measures
Compensation mechanisms for people whose livelihoods are disrupted by automation
And a bunch of
other measures
that plausibly limit the
AI risks
These requirements seem hard to meet, you might say. New AI models often develop capabilities suddenly and unpredictably. It's very hard to predict what will happen as AI tools are integrated into complex social and economic systems.
Well, exactly.
Framing your ask as being about
ensuring systems are safe
rather than halting their development entirely is harder to argue against. It also seems closer to what people worried about AI risks actually want. I don't know anybody who thinks AI systems have
zero
upside. In fact, the same people worried about the risks are often excited about the potential for advanced AI systems to solve thorny coordination problems, liberate billions from mindless toil, achieve wonderful breakthroughs in medicine, and generally advance human flourishing.
But they'd like companies to
prove
their systems are safe before they release them into the world, or even train them at all. To prove that they're not going to cause harm by, for example, hurting people, disrupting democratic institutions, or wresting control of important sociopolitical decisions from human hands.
Who can argue with that?
If, ultimately, those demands stop AI systems from being built for a while, well, that would be because developers couldn't find a way to build them without hurting poor people, local communities, or even birds and stuff.
[Edit: Peter McIntyre has pointed out that Ezra Klein made a version of this argument on the
80K podcast
. So I've been scooped - but at least I'm in good company!]
^
"Joshua Carson, head of policy at the consultancy Blackstock, said: "The notion of developers 'sitting on planning permissions' has been taken out of context. It takes a considerable length of time to agree the provision of new infrastructure on strategic sites for housing and extensive negotiation with councils to discharge planning conditions before homes can be built."" (
Kollewe 2021
)
^
Another example of this kind of thing, which I like but didn't fit...
NIMBYs don't call themselves NIMBYs. They call themselves affordable housing advocates or community representatives or environmental campaigners. They're usually not against building houses. They just want to make sure that those houses are affordable, attractive to existing residents, and don't destroy habitat for birds and stuff.
Who can argue with that? If, ultimately, those demands stop houses from being built entirely, well, that's because developers couldn't find a way to build them without hurting poor people, local communities, or birds and stuff.
This is called politics and it's powerful. The most effective anti-housebuilding organisation in the UK doesn't call itself Pause Housebuilding. It calls itself the Campaign to Protect Rural England, because English people
love
rural England. CPRE campaigns in the 1940s
helped shape
England's planning system. As a result, permission to build houses is only granted when it's in the "public interest"; in practice it is given
infrequently
and often with onerous
conditions
.
[1]
The
AI pause folks
could learn from this approach.
[2]
Instead of campaigning for a total halt to AI development, they could push for strict regulations that ostensibly aim to ensure new AI systems won't harm people (or birds and stuff).
Maybe ask governments for the equivalent of a planning system for new AI models. Require companies to prove to planners their models are safe. Ask for:
Independent safety audits
Ethics reviews
Economic analyses
Environmental assessments
Public reports on risk analysis and mitigation measures
Compensation mechanisms for people whose livelihoods are disrupted by automation
And a bunch of
other measures
that plausibly limit the
AI risks
These requirements seem hard to meet, you might say. New AI models often develop capabilities suddenly and unpredictably. It's very hard to predict what will happen as AI tools are integrated into complex social and economic systems.
Well, exactly.
Framing your ask as being about
ensuring systems are safe
rather than halting their development entirely is harder to argue against. It also seems closer to what people worried about AI risks actually want. I don't know anybody who thinks AI systems have
zero
upside. In fact, the same people worried about the risks are often excited about the potential for advanced AI systems to solve thorny coordination problems, liberate billions from mindless toil, achieve wonderful breakthroughs in medicine, and generally advance human flourishing.
But they'd like companies to
prove
their systems are safe before they release them into the world, or even train them at all. To prove that they're not going to cause harm by, for example, hurting people, disrupting democratic institutions, or wresting control of important sociopolitical decisions from human hands.
Who can argue with that?
If, ultimately, those demands stop AI systems from being built for a while, well, that would be because developers couldn't find a way to build them without hurting poor people, local communities, or even birds and stuff.
[Edit: Peter McIntyre has pointed out that Ezra Klein made a version of this argument on the
80K podcast
. So I've been scooped - but at least I'm in good company!]
^
"Joshua Carson, head of policy at the consultancy Blackstock, said: "The notion of developers 'sitting on planning permissions' has been taken out of context. It takes a considerable length of time to agree the provision of new infrastructure on strategic sites for housing and extensive negotiation with councils to discharge planning conditions before homes can be built."" (
Kollewe 2021
)
^
Another example of this kind of thing, which I like but didn't fit...