The traditional method of regulatory capture is not to purport to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, it's to go look around for whatever people are actually worried about, over-hype it if necessary, and then propose a solution which shuts out competitors whether or not it does anything about the problem. It may even reduce that specific problem while still being intentionally crafted to shut down competition.
This is not incompatible with honest people having legitimate concerns about the original problem, because the dispute is not existence of the problem, it's the net benefit of the proposed solution.
You mean they are not currently employed by the well-known companies. Did they declare they divested their shares in their former employer and/or acquirer?
How could you tell the difference between people who genuinely believe and people who genuinely believe because bad? Have you considered that where you fall on this question might be because of some pre-existing assumptions?
You could be right but it also doesn't have to be a corporate psyop. It could be experts in the industry raising some sincerely held criticisms and people at large being like, "oh that's a good point." Even if we're in the latter case they're also allowed to be allowed to be wrong or just misguided.
You don't actually to attack the intent of the speaker in this case, you could just be like, "here's why your wrong."
Many of the people making this claim are not associated with any company.
The traditional method of regulatory capture is not to purport to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, it's to go look around for whatever people are actually worried about, over-hype it if necessary, and then propose a solution which shuts out competitors whether or not it does anything about the problem. It may even reduce that specific problem while still being intentionally crafted to shut down competition.
This is not incompatible with honest people having legitimate concerns about the original problem, because the dispute is not existence of the problem, it's the net benefit of the proposed solution.
You mean they are not currently employed by the well-known companies. Did they declare they divested their shares in their former employer and/or acquirer?
The big AI X-risk names never have been.
6 replies →
No, they've been sold a line by those that are, and believe it because it matches with their pre-existing assumptions.
How could you tell the difference between people who genuinely believe and people who genuinely believe because bad? Have you considered that where you fall on this question might be because of some pre-existing assumptions?
You could be right but it also doesn't have to be a corporate psyop. It could be experts in the industry raising some sincerely held criticisms and people at large being like, "oh that's a good point." Even if we're in the latter case they're also allowed to be allowed to be wrong or just misguided.
You don't actually to attack the intent of the speaker in this case, you could just be like, "here's why your wrong."
1 reply →
Yudkowsky was sold a line by big AI tech 20 years ago was he?