In the near term, should AI policy and discourse prioritize catastrophic loss-of-control risks over practical applications and near-term issues?

“We want to avoid the loss of control stuff. So we want to make it the case that we don't get the world taken over by misaligned superintelligences. Insofar as we're going to be building superintelligences at all, which we do in our, in our scenario and in our recommendation, we want to be doing it very cautiously and slowly,”

“When we wrote early papers in AI safety, we talked about things not to do. They were obviously unsafe, and the system would escape. Don't connect it to internet. Don't give random users access to the training data. Basically, the whole list was like a set of instructions. They read it and went, those are great ideas. We're going to”

“human safety is still unsolved problem. Now you have something more alien, doesn't have physical body, doesn't have biological needs, so there are additional complications. But all the problems we face with humans, still there, safety problems, crime, all that stays, and problems with understanding.”

“The first problem is the isolation, the containment wasn't good enough. If the isolation and containment was good enough, that technology would be sitting in a lab doing whatever it's doing, and we'd all be fine.”

“before we go fix the hypothetical problems, before we go create more regulations, can we work on the practical problems that we know exist, which is we need to do a better job with containment and isolation, which is we should not allow a product to interact with the external world until it's ready to be interacting with external worlds.”

“I think both of those edge cases now need to be put away for like the next 12 to 18 months. Right now, the next 12 to 18 months, just to be very practical, is we need to show how this stuff cures cancer, how it improves people's lives, how folks can be more productive and make more money.”

“human safety is still unsolved problem. Now you have something more alien, doesn't have physical body, doesn't have biological needs, so there are additional complications. But all the problems we face with humans, still there, safety problems, crime, all that stays, and problems with understanding.”

“When we wrote early papers in AI safety, we talked about things not to do. They were obviously unsafe, and the system would escape. Don't connect it to internet. Don't give random users access to the training data. Basically, the whole list was like a set of instructions. They read it and went, those are great ideas. We're going to”

“We want to avoid the loss of control stuff. So we want to make it the case that we don't get the world taken over by misaligned superintelligences. Insofar as we're going to be building superintelligences at all, which we do in our, in our scenario and in our recommendation, we want to be doing it very cautiously and slowly,”

“before we go fix the hypothetical problems, before we go create more regulations, can we work on the practical problems that we know exist, which is we need to do a better job with containment and isolation, which is we should not allow a product to interact with the external world until it's ready to be interacting with external worlds.”

“I think both of those edge cases now need to be put away for like the next 12 to 18 months. Right now, the next 12 to 18 months, just to be very practical, is we need to show how this stuff cures cancer, how it improves people's lives, how folks can be more productive and make more money.”