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

The technology is obviously epochal, but its path still largely unknown. 

It’s appropriate to have at least *some* humility toward “known unknowns” of a historical magnitude.

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

A high level of care was present in the development of nuclear bombs. Eg, intense secrecy and multiple layers of safegaurding before possible deployments

This isn't "apples to apples", ofc, bc nukes were "known" danger, whereas AI is "possible" danger

But some amount of this humility in makers feels right here, too

But nukes moved forward and nothing bad happened between nuclear powers? Instead we got a moral panic about nuclear energy and stagnated?

There was a high degree of care in nuclear tech development and rollout.

Beginning, nukes had a high cost attached to development/execution with materials now being highly controlled and activity to assemble such is highly monitored.

An order of magnitude difference in accessibility and difficulty to monitor wrt AI.