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

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

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

building /bracket | talking /greatbooks | ex-BCG, ex-PHD | poli + phil + econ

Team no brakes because I’ve seen no credible arguments for it being around the corner. I got there from listening and reading to the researchers for the past 13 years and staying current in the space. It seems to be a minority of credible researchers hold this view and their arguments are full of logical fallacies

@backpack put a bank in your pocket and use your money whenever, wherever, however without permission

/backpack
/notdevin
icebreaker.xyz/notdevin

I’m cool with brakes being built in, feels more appropriate that the operator should hold the brake, not the corporation or regulator. 

We can only know where the best place for a brake is when we’ve got the ability to model the AGI system, which we can’t yet because nobody knows what that is 

Language != AGI

I actually agree with this, and it helps me clarify my current position (open to change): 

❌ Team “use brakes now”

✅ Team “build in brakes”