I am not afraid of robots. I am afraid of people.
We recorded 12 claims from this post. 2 were checked against evidence. 10 can’t be checked. 4 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (12)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“I’m more concerned about bad outcomes for AI now than at any other point in my life.”
Our reading: Marcus is more concerned about bad AI outcomes now (April 2023) than at any prior point in his life.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“On a 1-10 scale of least worried to most worried, I was at a 6. Now I am at an I- don’t-think-about-much-else 9.”
Our reading: Marcus's worry about AI rose from 6 out of 10 a year earlier to 9 out of 10 in April 2023.
No horizon
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Causal claim
“At some level the petition worked; Capitol Hill, for example, pretty clearly got the message that we can’t sit around forever on these issues.”
Our reading: At some level the FLI pause petition worked; for example, Capitol Hill pretty clearly got the message that we can't sit around forever on AI issues.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The evidence supports a limited claim of congressional attention and favorable response, not Congress-wide agreement [e1].
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“The main thing that worries me is that I see self-interest on all sides, and not just the corporate players, when what we really need is coordinated action.”
Our reading: Marcus's main worry is that he sees self-interest on all sides of the AI debate, not just among corporate players, when what is really needed is coordinated action.
No horizon
Scope: on all sides, not just the corporate players
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“Whether or not you want a pause, the reality is that large language models remain exactly what I have always described them to be: bulls in a china shop, powerful, reckless, and difficult to control.”
Our reading: Large language models remain powerful, reckless, and difficult to control.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Reckless is assessed as a description of outputs, not intent.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Making new systems that are “more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal” should literally be at the top of everyone’s agenda.”
Our reading: Making new AI systems that are more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal should literally be at the top of everyone's agenda.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“It was definitely too hypey around the imminence of artificial general intelligence (I held my nose on that point); there is no obvious way to get ensure compliance; China might go ahead anyway; we don’t even know how to evaluate the proposed ban’s main criterion.”
Our reading: There is no obvious way to ensure compliance with the proposed moratorium, China might go ahead anyway, and we don't even know how to evaluate the ban's main criterion (halting systems more powerful than GPT-4).
No horizon
Qualifier: China might go ahead anyway (possibility only)
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“To be honest, I would have preferred my own proposed moratorium, co-written a month earlier, with Canadian Member of Parliament Michelle Rempel Garner, which called for a temporary ban on widescale deployment (not research), until we could put in a regulatory infrastructure modeled on establishing the safety of medicines, with phased roll out and safety cases.”
Our reading: Widescale AI deployment (not research) should be temporarily banned until a medicine-style regulatory regime with phased rollout and safety cases is in place.
No horizon
Qualifier: until regulatory infrastructure is in place
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“If we want to get to AI we can trust, probably the first thing we are going to need is a coalition.”
Our reading: If we want to get to AI we can trust, probably the first thing we are going to need is a coalition.
No horizon
Only if: if we want to get to AI we can trust
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Which is why either/or thinking – thinking my problems are more important than your problems – is deadly.”
Our reading: Because no single solution fixes AI's problems, treating one set of AI risks as more important to the exclusion of others is harmful.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Absolutely, a Manhattan project on getting AI systems to align with human values would be a great thing.”
Our reading: A Manhattan Project-scale effort to make AI systems align with human values would be a great thing.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“The sooner we stop bickering and starting getting to it, the better.”
Our reading: The AI community should stop infighting and start on trustworthy-AI research as soon as possible.
No horizon
Held from this post (4)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: OpenAI has effectively become a for-profit oriented around Microsoft's goals, de-emphasizing its humanitarian charter, a shift accelerated by the $10 billion Microsoft deal.
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: There are tons of examples of successful regulation, such as seatbelt laws, which have saved something like 300,000 lives.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently