Rob Wiblin

I think it just takes a long time.

I think there's two things.

It just takes a lot of effort.

And then the other thing is that even if you put in that effort, you don't want to fully back your own inside view.

And then I think I wouldn't endorse that either.

And so like...

It's this one-two punch where it's just developing your views about exactly how interpretability or adversarial robustness or control or corrigibility fits into everything is a ton of work.

You have to talk to a ton of people.

You have to write up a bunch of stuff.

And in the meantime, you're not getting money out the door while you're doing all this stuff, right?

And then having done all this stuff, where are you going to end up?

You're going to end up in a place where...

there are reasonable views on both sides and like it's a complicated issue.

We probably want to hedge our bets and like defer to like, you know, different people with different amounts of like the pot and so on.

And so I think people have a reaction that's like very reasonably like, okay, we're going to end up in a place where

we've thought it really, we've thought it through.

It was a lot of work.

It's still very uncertain.

We still want to spread our bets.

So why not like, just get to the point where just short circuit all that and spread our bets and like lean on advisors.