(This started as a reply to @Tamsin Leake 's reply in my post about why cyborgism maybe should be open. This post does not require you to read our interaction, though it lead to this, and I'm very grateful for Tamsin's reply.)
In general, this is a counterargument against:
> we should only share cyborg tools (software that lets AI help us think) among AI safety people, so that the big labs don't get ahold of them, so we can save the world before they end it
The gist
My idea is that IF humanity doesn't want to die, we can discover this by maximizing information sharing and "converging" our culture and discourse towards what is *actually* going on with AI and what systems are capable of and that society isn't equipped to handle it, which will then cause humanity to resolve its dislike of the state of the world, by creating safe AI and/or institutions for creating safe AI.
(or whatever the path may be, which we don't know yet!!)
Tools that (in part via AI) help us think, help us share ideas and parse information and find information, will speed up memetic evolution.
Can't solve a problem you can't see.
Explore vs exploit ("don't buttclench")
Something feels wrong about AI safety people not wanting to discuss insights "because big bad tech will use it to build stronger AI".
(It doesn't jive with my personality at all because it feels very buttclenchy, so I'm aware that I'm biased against this way of viewing things, but I'll keep writing anyway)
I wanna propose th...
Make this part of your paper trail
Save this paper to a shelf, write a review, and keep your own notes.