3 ms·

I read the summary and started the main paper. It rather disappoints. The phrase 'costly signals' is spread around to so many meanings. The dangers are vague an

I read the summary and started the main paper. It rather disappoints. The phrase 'costly signals' is spread around to so many meanings. The dangers are vague and not backed up. Very military and geopolitical focus. Its use of the Cuban Missile crisis to compare to this moment AI is bizarre and alarmist. All for a concusion of... we must control the narrative. Spook juice.

rramadass 3y ago
I am afraid you have not read the report and hence have the wrong impression. It is well written, timely and worth a full read. This is the first time i see a complete picture of policy implications of AI safety/non-safety in one reputed report rather than in uninformed articles/blogs. First off, it is published by CSET whose mission is to look at "security implications of emerging technologies" and "to inform research at the intersection of technology and statecraft." (https://cset.georgetown.edu/about-us/ https://cset.georgetown.edu/about-us/) So the focus on Military/Geopolitics/Strategy is mandatory and natural. The term "Costly Signal" is well known and used in Game Theory/International Relations/etc. fields (eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVTKG8O2bI&list=PLB5965C13F4B0B2DA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVTKG8O2bI&list=PLB5965C13F...) and thus has different aspects to its usage. The origin of the specific four used by the authors in the report is given by the very first citation in the "Endnotes" section. The paper is titled "Decoding Intentions Artificial Intelligence and Costly Signals" and thus 1) the importance of figuring out the intention behind a signal that is being received and 2) the importance of clearly and accurately conveying intention on the sending side is what is being emphasized by the example of "Cuban Missile Crisis", and not that AI safety is of the same category as the "Cuban Missile Crisis". In summary, everybody needs to read this report in entirety to really "grok" the importance and implications of "AI policy making".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rramadass 3y ago

I am afraid you have not read the report and hence have the wrong impression. It is well written, timely and worth a full read. This is the first time i see a complete picture of policy implications of AI safety/non-safety in one reputed report rather than in uninformed articles/blogs. First off, it is published by CSET whose mission is to look at "security implications of emerging technologies" and "to inform research at the intersection of technology and statecraft." (https://cset.georgetown.edu/about-us/ https://cset.georgetown.edu/about-us/) So the focus on Military/Geopolitics/Strategy is mandatory and natural. The term "Costly Signal" is well known and used in Game Theory/International Relations/etc. fields (eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVTKG8O2bI&list=PLB5965C13F4B0B2DA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVTKG8O2bI&list=PLB5965C13F...) and thus has different aspects to its usage. The origin of the specific four used by the authors in the report is given by the very first citation in the "Endnotes" section. The paper is titled "Decoding Intentions Artificial Intelligence and Costly Signals" and thus 1) the importance of figuring out the intention behind a signal that is being received and 2) the importance of clearly and accurately conveying intention on the sending side is what is being emphasized by the example of "Cuban Missile Crisis", and not that AI safety is of the same category as the "Cuban Missile Crisis". In summary, everybody needs to read this report in entirety to really "grok" the importance and implications of "AI policy making".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]