Dan Hendrycks: belief

Transcript context

…Of us in the West have Yes. That's right. That's right. That's right. And there's there's other sorts of longer term questions about how you might do that, like how are you going to distribute power. Maybe that would be with compute slices that people would rent out, for instance, where they would have the unique cryptographic key to to activating that compute slice so that you're not just distributing wealth, you're also distributing ways of of generating that wealth. You know, there's there's a lot in this in this deep future that 1 could pull at, but I I I think there are some there there are some, paths, where things work out well. I like the term equilibria. I think we probably all agree that there's multiple equilibria here and that we're all trying to steer towards positive equilibria. And I think we would all also all agree that there's lots of different ways to get to both the positive and the negative. We might disagree about some of the paths, some of the likelihoods and so forth, but I think we put we're all 3 operating under that general assumption that there there's multiple ways this could go and some of them are good and some of them are bad. I'm a little darker than I used to be even a couple years ago because of, the economic and quality sorts of issues. So a couple years ago when I trusted Sam a lot more than I trust him now, I heard him talking about universal basic income and, you know, I've always thought that that was an important part of the equation. And it seems to me that the more that data has driven things, the more acquisitive the companies, and it's not just OpenAI, have been and the less realistic it has seemed to me that we're going have anything like universal basic income. I think there is some scenario in the which there's so much wealth that everybody's subsistence gets met. I don't expect that the wealthy people are gonna give up the beachfront property under any circumstance or their power. And I think the dynamics that we've seen in Washington lately have made me, I know politics may not be the same, have made me less optimistic about any kind of relatively equal distribution or even just not a relatively extreme distribution. I think that the positive outcomes do depend on getting some answers there to what would be the incentives, the mechanisms, the dynamics such that things are well distributed. And I guess I'm sort of making this up as I go, but I think there's an argument here for stopping the train if we can't see any solution to the political thing. Most of my own personal concerns are really about technical alignment which we'll talk about soon enough. But if we don't have an even envisionable political solution, that does make me nervous and I could see an argument for let's stop the train now because we just don't see how to do it. And going back to something you said at the very beginning, there there's an interesting argument about delaying the train versus stopping the train. And like I think all of us signed the pause letter maybe? I didn't. You didn't sign the pause letter. Okay. Only I signed the pause letter. That's interesting. I haven't even affected that. Didn't call that. That's fine. I forgot…

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