Max Tegmark recently published a post "Which side of the AI safety community are you in?", where he carves the AI safety community into 2 camps:

Camp A) "Race to superintelligence safely”: People in this group typically argue that "superintelligence is inevitable because of X”, and it's therefore better that their in-group (their company or country) build it first. X is typically some combination of “Capitalism”, “Molloch”, “lack of regulation” and “China”.

Camp B) “Don’t race to superintelligence”: People in this group typically argue that “racing to superintelligence is bad because of Y”. Here Y is typically some combination of “uncontrollable”, “1984”, “disempowerment” and “extinction”.

I think this framing is counterproductive. Instead, here's the oversimplified framing that I prefer:

Plan 1: Try to get international coordination to stop the race to superintelligence, and then try to put humanity on a better trajectory so we can safely build aligned superintelligence [...]

The original text contained 6 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.