HaydnBelfield

Haydn has been a Research Associate and Academic Project Manager at the University of Cambridge's Centre for the Study of Existential Risk since Jan 2017.

Topic Contributions

Comments

Are you really in a race? The Cautionary Tales of Szilárd and Ellsberg

Thanks! And thanks for this link. Very moving on their sense of powerlessness.

Are you really in a race? The Cautionary Tales of Szilárd and Ellsberg

Thanks Rohin. Yes I should perhaps have spelled this out more. I was thinking about two things - focussed on those two stages of advocacy and participation.

1. Don't just get swept up in race rhetoric and join the advocacy: "oh there's nothing we can do to prevent this, we may as well just join and be loud advocates so we have some chance to shape it". Well no, whether a sprint occurs is not just in the hands of politicians and the military, but also to a large extent in the hands of scientists. Scientists have proven crucial to advocacy for, and participation in, sprints. Don't give up your power too easily.

2. You don't have to stay if it turns out you're not actually in a race and you don't have any influence on the sprint program. There were several times in 1945 when it seems to me that scientists gave up their power too easily - over when and how the bomb was used, and what information was given to the US public. Its striking that Rotblat was the only one to resign - and he was leant on to keep his real reasons secret.

One can also see this later in 1949 and the decision to go for the thermonuclear bomb. Oppenheimer, Conant, Fermi and Bethe all strongly opposed that second 'sprint' ("It is neccessarily an evil thing considerd in any light."). They were overruled, and yet continued to actively participate in the program. The only person to leave the program (Ellsberg thinks, p.291-296) was Ellsberg's own father, a factory designer - who also kept it secret.

Exit or the threat of exit can be a powerful way to shape outcomes - I discuss this further in Activism by the AI Community. Don't give up your power too easily.

Are you really in a race? The Cautionary Tales of Szilárd and Ellsberg

Thanks Pablo for those thoughts and the link - very interesting to read in his own words.

I completely agree that stopping a 'sprint' project is very hard - probably harder than not beginning one. The US didn't slow down on ICBMs in 1960-2 either. 

We can see some of the mechanisms by which this occurs around biological weapons programs. Nixon unilaterally ended the US one; Brezhnev increased the size of the secret Soviet one. So in the USSR there was a big political/military/industrial complex with a stake in the growth of the program and substantial lobbying power, and it shaped Soviet perceptions of 'sunk costs', precedent, doctrine, strategic need for a weapons technology, identities and norms; while in the US the oppossite occured. 

Risks from Autonomous Weapon Systems and Military AI

I don't think its a hole at all, I think its quite reasonable to focus on major states. The private sector approach is a different one with a whole different set of actors/interventions/literature - completely makes sense that its outside the scope of this report. I was just doing classic whatabouterism, wondering about your take on a related but seperate approach.

Btw I completely agree with you about cluster munitions. 

Risks from Autonomous Weapon Systems and Military AI

Great report! Looking forward to digging into it more. 

It definitely makes sense to focus on (major) states. However a different intervention I don't think I saw in the piece is about targeting the private sector - those actually developing the tech. E.g. Reprogramming war by Pax for Peace, a Dutch NGO. They describe the project as follows:

"This is part of the PAX project aimed at dissuading the private sector from contributing to the development of lethal autonomous weapons. These weapons pose a serious threat to international peace and security, and would violate fundamental legal and ethical principles. PAX aims to engage with the private sector to help prevent lethal autonomous weapons from becoming a reality. In a series of four reports we look into which actors could potentially be involved in the development of these weapons. Each report looks at a different group of actors, namely states, the tech sector, universities & research institutes, and arms producers. This project is aimed at creating awareness in the private sector about the concerns related to lethal autonomous weapons, and at working with private sector actors to develop guidelines and regulations to ensure their work does not contribute to the development of these weapons."

It follows fairly successful investor campaigns on e.g. cluster munitions. This project could form the basis for shareholder activism or divestment by investors, and/or wider activism by the AI community  by students, researchers, employees, etc - building on eg FLI's "we won't work on LAWS" pledge

I'd be interested in your views on that kind of approach.

Are you really in a race? The Cautionary Tales of Szilárd and Ellsberg

Thanks for these questions! I tried to answer your first in my reply to Christian.

On your second, "delaying development" makes it sound like the natural outcome/null hypothesis is a sprint - but its remarkable how the more 'natural' outcome was to not sprint, and how much effort it took to make the US sprint.

To get initial interest at the beginning of the war required lots of advocacy from top scientists, like Einstein. Even then, the USA  didn't really do anything from 1939 until 1941, when an Australian scientist went to the USA, persuaded US scientists and promised that Britain would share all its research and resources. Britain was later cut out by the Americans, and didn't have a serious independent program for the rest of the war. Germany considered it in the early war, but decided against in 1942. During the war, the USSR or Japan had serious programs (and France was collaborating with Germany). All four major states (UK, Germany, USSR, Japan) realised it would cost a huge amount in terms of money, people and scarce resources like iron, and probably not come in time to affect the course of the war.

The counterfactual is just "The US acts like the other major powers of the time and decides not to launch a sprint program that costs 0.4% of GDP during a total war, and that probably won't affect who wins the war".

Are you really in a race? The Cautionary Tales of Szilárd and Ellsberg

Thanks for the kind words Christian - I'm looking forward to reading that report, it sounds fascinating.

I agree with your first point - I say "They were arguably right, ex ante, to advocate for and participate in a project to deter the Nazi use of nuclear weapons." Actions in 1939-42 or around 1957-1959 are defensible. However, I think this highlights 1) accurate information in 1942-3 (and 1957) would have been useful and 2) when they found out the accurate information (in 1944 and 1961) , its very interesting that it didn't stop the arms buildup.

The question of whether over, under or calibrated confidence is more common is an interesting one that I'd like someone to research. It perhaps could be usefully narrowed to WWII & postwar USA. I offered some short examples, but this could easily be a paper. There are some theoretical reasons to expect overconfidence, I'd think: such as paranoia and risk-aversion, or  political economy incentives for the military-industrial complex to overemphasise risk (to get funding). But yes, an interesting open empirical question.

New 80k problem profile - Climate change

Pretty sure jackva is responding to the linked article, not just this post, as e.g. they quote footnote 25 in full.

On first point, I think that that kind of argument could be found in Jonathan B. Wiener's work on "'risk-superior moves'—better options that reduce multiple risks in concert." See e.g.

On the second point, what about climate change in India-Pakistan? e.g. an event worse than the current terrible heatwave - heat stress and agriculture/economic shock leads to migration, instability, rise in tension and accidental use of nuclear weapons. The recent modelling papers indicate that would lead to 'nuclear autumn' and probably be a global catastrophe.

New 80k problem profile - Climate change

Note that "humanity is doomed" is not the same as 'direct extinction', as there are many other ways for us to waste our potential.

I think its an interesting argument, but I'm unsure that we can get to a rigorous, defensible distinction between 'direct' and 'indirect' risks. I'm also unsure how this framework fits with the "risk/risk factor" framework, or the 'hazard/vulnerability/exposure' framework that's common across disaster risk reduction, business + govt planning, etc. I'd be interested in hearing more in favour of this view, and in favour of the 2 claims I picked out above.

We've talked about this before, but in general I've got such uncertainty about the state of our knowledge and the future of the world that I incline towards grouping together nuclear, bio and climate as being in roughly the same scale/importance 'tier' and then spending most of our focus seeing if any particular research strand or intervention is neglected and solvable (e.g. your work flagging something underexplored like cement).

On your food production point, as I understand it the issue is more shocks than averages. Food system shocks that can lead to "economic shocks, socio-political instability as well as starvation, migration and conflict" (from the 'causal loop diagram' paper). However, I'm not a food systems expert, I'd suggest the best people to discuss this with more are our Catherine Richards and Asaf Tzachor, authors of e.g. Future Foods For Risk-Resilient Diets.

Load More