I attended the Progress Summit in Hollywood yesterday, hosted by The Atlantic. Progress studies and EA have overlap, so I thought it would be useful to give my thoughts on the event. In general, the main difference I perceived was people attending not because they wanted to maximize their positive impact but rather because they were intellectually interested in socially responsible progress. And some other stuff. 

-- 

Right after I left, I told my friend it felt like a “grown up version of an EA conference.” I’m 22, and was probably the youngest person there. Everything felt more professional (cocktails, food, outfits, etc.) and the operations seemed smoother than any EA event I’ve been to. 

--

The facilitators were all Atlantic writers, such as Ross Anderson and Derek Thompson, and they were significantly more eloquent and better at holding people’s attention than any EA event I’ve been to. I could definitely tell the difference in their training. That being said, the talks felt fluffy and often skirted around intellectual issues for the sake of a smooth conversation. 

--

Networking was less direct. More small talk, less intensity. 

--

The event was catered towards investors/venture capitalists. Speakers were trying to make their product sound appealing so investors will fund them, which I thought was slightly bad for epistemics, often ignoring the risks of their products (e.g. AI slaughter bots).  

--

In general, the majority of the attendees seemed bullish on “the progress of technology,” and didn’t touch much on the potential risks of things like AGI or biorisk. If they did address the risks, it was invariably in relation to (1) the economy, (2) climate change, or (3) war. Of the people I spoke with, <20% had heard of misalignment or existential risk. I didn’t get the impression that anyone at the event didn’t take existential risk seriously. Rather, it felt like they had not heard about it in the progress studies ecosystem. 

--

Overall, I think the Progress studies community seems decently aligned with what EAs care about, and could become more-so in the coming years. The event had decent epistemics and was less intimidating than an EA conference. I think many people who feel that EA is too intense, cares too much about longtermism, or uses too much jargon could find progress studies as a suitable alternative. If the movement known as EA dissolved (God forbid) I think progress studies could absorb many of the folks. 

--

Notable events: 

  1. “How mRNA Technology Can Save the World” 
    1. Most of the people I talked to here had never considered the risks posed by biotechnology (beyond class inequality stuff)
  2. “Drones and AI: The Future of Military Technology” 
    1. The concern most people had was causing a war (which seems good), but because much of what Brian Schimpf talked about was technology used for deterrence, most people then seemed bullish on the positive impacts of this technology (I was not). 
  3. “How Artificial Intelligence Can Revolutionize Creativity” 
    1. I didn’t go to this one, but I heard from someone who did that they talked about GPT-3 and Dall-e positively, and didn't mention the potential risks posed by capabilities advancements. 
  4. “The Long View” 
    1. Didn’t go, unfortunately. 

70

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments9
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 8:45 AM

What is the view toward animal welfare of the Progress Studies movement? 

A large community of "near-EA" animal welfare people exist, but don't post on the forum as much as others. Note that this community has a mature, coordinated, cooperative outlook, different from some kinds of activism.

Did not hear animal welfare mentioned once, and they had lots of meat options for lunch. That's all I got lol. 

You can read what Jason Crawford had to say on the topic here when 
Peter Wildeford  asked:
https://twitter.com/peterwildeford/status/1520911804288966656

Peter:  What do progress studies people think about nonhuman animals?
Jason : It's not discussed much. There are probably a range of views. Personally, my current position is that we shouldn't be inhumane or needlessly cruel, but that animals aren't on the same moral level as humans

Peter: Do you think modern factory farming is inhumane?
Jason: I've only read a little bit about it, and what I read was pretty bad. But the topic is controversial enough that I'd want to hear multiple takes (ideally from different sides) before having a real opinion

Also mentions that he doesn't see factory farming of animals as  one of the biggest problems/negatives caused by progress.

Thanks for sharing these thoughts! I'm curious to know more about smoother operations - could you elaborate?

it's hard to put into words, but like there were cocktails and nice background music and all the events transitioned super smoothly. It's like when you watch the Oscars or something and everything seems like it's been rehearsed--that's how this felt. EA conferences, on the other hand, usually seem more hectic and improvisational. 

In this case, if I had to choose between

A) attending an event with nicer background music + cocktails and

B) one that doesn't seem "rehearsed"

I'd probably end up choosing the latter...

[comment deleted]1y1
0
0

Overall, I think the Progress studies community seems decently aligned with what EAs care about, and could become more-so in the coming years. The event had decent epistemics and was less intimidating than an EA conference. I think many people who feel that EA is too intense, cares too much about longtermism, or uses too much jargon could find progress studies as a suitable alternative. If the movement known as EA dissolved (God forbid) I think progress studies could absorb many of the folks.

I'm curious about how you think this will develop. It seems like Progress studies often takes the stance that for all technologies, progress in that technology is good. This seems relatively central to their shtick.

Maybe their views will start to shift towards thinking strongly in terms of what we would call differential technological development. Where they can maintain their view that progress is good, but append onto that that progress is only good if certain technologies get developed sooner than other technologies. Perhaps this is the perspective they have on many technologies already, and I don't know enough about the community to tell.

You know that's what I thought as well, but I've found the community to be more open to caution than I initially thought. Derek Thompson in particular (the main organizer for the event) harped on safety quite a bit. And if more EAs got involved (assuming they don't get amnesia) I assume they can carry over some of these concerns and shift the culture.