Speaker unverified: belief

Transcript context

…Optimism. We should be able to do it so. I would not say and I want to actually deny that, you know, the US and China can't cooperate. I have I, I have not changed my mind about the feasibility of US, China cooperation being way higher than most Americans would expect. I think that the feasibility of an agreement to slow down the frontier of super intelligence, whether that be, you know, between the frontier labs or between US and China is kind of gone like. That the, the, the window for that has has been lost because prosaic alignment is going sufficiently well that the threat of you know, of, of your own system kind of taking over and defeating you. It's small enough that it's not worth it to to take on the risk that someone else will secretly defeat you using their system by breaking the rule. This is, this is excluding a, a class of of, of content of the deal, not a class of player in the deal. It's not it's certainly nothing about China. I think China's actually quite cooperative on this type of thing. But what I do see as feasible is an an agreement to limit misuse by restricting the capabilities of the most advanced models. The way that I would like to see this done is that it should be like how Fable has really broad safeguards around catastrophic capabilities. But you can still now after the Commerce Department relieved the overbroad controls like public members of the public can still use it. Just you're gonna trip the classifier once in a while and have to start over. This is, I think, the right trade off. And it would be great if the US and China could agree to not open source models anymore, but just make them available with this type of classifier system so that, you know, the misused potential is kept down. I think that is viable. And I think that's, you know, potentially quite important for people to work on now. They are sending signals now that they might be moving in exactly that direction just to try to stay back. The it's basically alignment press has been so strong that from each side's perspective now it's like, and I always, I've traditionally said the opposite. I've always said we got to remember here the real aliens are the AIS, not the Chinese. We're all humans. We should be able to get together. We should be able to have a lot more confidence in one another than we'd have in the AIS. You're saying actually constitutional alignment and the potential for Bodhisattva AI is actually real and high enough now that risk has actually gone lower than the risk of the other side defecting. And so it's rational for both sides to say, actually I do trust my AI more than I trust you. And therefore the things we can get together on are going to be relatively narrow around to make sure the crazy people in each of our societies don't do something crazy. And we can probably agree on that, even while we don't fundamentally trust one another as civilizations to not try to defect and get the upper hand. But then that does leave us in a race. I mean, is it, is it consistent to say at the market? I'm a little sceptical, but I'm like, I can under, I can grok it. But the market level that like maybe we can get our way to or find our way to a happy equilibrium where more honest negotiations become the norm and we maybe leave something on the table. But it's all for the common good and we're all benefiting and great. But now if we put that up to the level of the two nation states of the two kind of leading world powers racing against each other, intuitively, that doesn't feel like a very fertile ground for Bodhisattva AIS to emerge, right? Like the US military, I don't think is going to have a Bodhisattva constitution for mill AI or whatever, right? That's.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.