In you're in favor of "AI safety" (broad definition), what's your most compelling cast-length argument?

Working on Farcaster and Warpcast. Longer thoughts at https://dwr.email

i’m in the all-gas-no-brakes camp but will do my best to steelman:

1. we’re on the cusp of agi 
2. agi is like nuclear: extinction-level threat, global superpower-level leverage, and potential civilization expanding resource
3. we dont really know how it works
4. thus, we should proceed with *extreme* caution

1. there are many “brakes” (constraints) already in place https://warpcast.com/nonlinear.eth/0xc4528a04

2. pessimistic of state capacity and top-down, command and control approaches

3. optimistic of markets and bottom-up emergence of order 

4. potential upside worth the downside risk

playing /bracket, assisting /bracky, talking /greatbooks

If points 1-3 have any possible validity (most admit they do), then I just don't understand the position of "no brakes"

Does it come from believing that, politically speaking, our only actual options are "only brakes" or "no brakes"?

Brakes are simply a tool that give us more optionality to pursue our own benefit

only if by “no brakes” you mean complete u.s. government control

by that definition i’m pretty sure the the ai safety folks would agree with you

on point 2, there were no brakes for decades and everything worked out ok?

I would rather trust an AGI (that knows the statistical implication of its actions) than a mad tyrant with his fat finger on the missile launch button. people start wars for no reasons. an AGI will be able to understand better what should not be done.