3 ms·
Helen Toner has done a huge amount of work slowing down capabilities research in China. That's why she lived in Beijing for a year, she is a big part of why the
by lucubratory 3y ago
Helen Toner has done a huge amount of work slowing down capabilities research in China. That's why she lived in Beijing for a year, she is a big part of why there are a lot of Chinese researchers from various AI labs signed onto the CAIS statement, and it's what her relationship to the Pentagon is all about. I think she is probably the individual person who knows the most in the world about the relative AI capabilities of China and the US, and her career is about working with the Pentagon, AI companies in the USA, and AI companies in China to prevent an arms race scenario around AI. It's the sort of work that really, really doesn't benefit from a lot of publicity, so it's unfortunate that this whole situation has put her in the spotlight and means someone else will probably need to backchannel between the US and China on AI safety now.
I don't know why she chose to publicly execute Altman, there just isn't enough information to say for sure. It probably wasn't a specific, imminent safety concern like "Our new frontier model was way more capable than we were expecting and attempted a breakout that nearly succeeded during internal red teaming", according to the new CEO it wasn't anything like that. The new CEO has heard their reason, but is putting a lot of pressure on them to put that reason in writing for some reason. I don't know why, we just don't have enough information.
But basically, she is a very qualified person on the exact topic you are concerned about and has devoted her career to solving that problem. I wouldn't write off what she's doing or has done here as "She didn't consider that China exists".
- jacquesm 3y agoWell, if she was working with the Chinese she couldn't have done a more effective job. So I'm not sure how this all integrates in her head but you break the glass in break-the-glass moments, not before, it's a one-shot thing.
- comp_throw7 3y agoSee https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38373572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38373572 for why this might have qualified (if the story as presented is accurate).
- jacquesm 3y agoThin ice at best. And if it was she should come out and say it or leak the minutes where that was established as the reason that Sam had to go, that the fall-out would be worth it and that Microsoft could be contained. I think any action to immediately destroy OpenAI should have been preceded by being on-track to create AGI and strong indications that it was not going to benefit humanity, as the charter implies. Anything less and it's just a powerplay. But what is the point of having a nice fat red button if you never get to push it?
- lucubratory 3y agoShe was working with the Pentagon, to try and make sure there isn't a serious issue between the US & China on AI, which requires actual engagement instead of just blind nationalism if you want the Chinese to listen to anything you have to say. I think it would be a really bad idea to assume that she just hasn't thought this through. We just don't have enough information.
- jacquesm 3y agoI have some indication that she hasn't thought it through, that all started last Friday. If she has thought it through I hope that she can show her homework because it kind of matters.