Rob Wiblin

I think coefficient giving, I think, is developing a plan.

We spoke about that with a GAI coacher not too long ago.

They're developing a plan for how would you deploy a whole lot of money and compute in order to solve those kinds of issues using AI labor.

And I guess there could be this whole concern that no matter how much you were willing to spend, no matter how much people were trying, the models just wouldn't actually be up to it at that point because they would be very specialized on computer science and AI research and not really up to thinking about broader society.

But if that weren't too bad, then it does seem that there are at least some actors who are interested in doing this.

So what are some of the governance issues that you think only actual national governments can address that are maybe going to be neglected and not really handled because they're not able to use AI at the time?

Yeah, I guess it might be very difficult to reform governments as a whole.

As you say, they tend to be very rule-bound, and there's going to be a whole lot of rules that make it difficult to use AI in the ways that you and I would think are sensible.

It's possible you could get a carve-out for AI-specific agencies.

I guess you could imagine the UK AI Security Institute, for example,

being basically being given a carte blanche to use ai and it's in his governance work in a way that other agencies potentially couldn't because it's the only way that they would be able to keep up with at least like their their kind of work and they're the kind of group that might really push for it um yeah that's i guess a slightly hopeful possible outcome yeah um i hope we can do better than that but i agree that would be a nice baseline um mostly i feel like

An audience member wrote in asking, why not instead prioritize slowing down AI advances or opposing development of superintelligence?

One place you're very much with the broader consensus is that chain of thought monitoring is extremely useful and something that we want to be able to preserve for as long as possible.

This is, I guess, watching the thoughts that the AI is having that it's outputting onto its scratch pad in order to understand what it's trying to accomplish and why.

One way, I guess,

a difference that you have with many other people on that topic is that you think that it is fairly likely that chain of thought monitoring will remain useful, that we will be able to understand what the AIs are thinking and that what they're writing down there is actually related to what they're doing for longer than other people do.

You know, many people worry that

you know, within a year or two.

Perhaps they could be speaking in some crazy code or they could figure out ways of, you know, putting information in there that we can't fully track or there'll just be too much of it for us to even be able to monitor it.

Yeah, why do you think that chain of thought monitoring potentially is going to have quite a long run?