LW - Fear of centralized power vs. fear of misaligned AGI: Vitalik Buterin on 80,000 Hours by Seth Herd

Link to original article

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Fear of centralized power vs. fear of misaligned AGI: Vitalik Buterin on 80,000 Hours, published by Seth Herd on August 5, 2024 on LessWrong.
Vitalik Buterin wrote an impactful blog post, My techno-optimism. I found this discussion of one aspect on 80,00 hours much more interesting. The remainder of that interview is nicely covered in the host's EA Forum post.
My techno optimism apparently appealed to both sides, e/acc and doomers. Buterin's approach to bridging that polarization was interesting. I hadn't understood before the extent to which anti-AI regulation sentiment is driven by fear of centralized power. I hadn't thought about this risk before since it didn't seem relevant to AGI risk, but I've been updating to think it's highly relevant.
[this is automated transcription that's inaccurate and comically accurate by turns :)]
Rob Wiblin (the host) (starting at 20:49):
what is it about the way that you put the reasons to worry that that ensured that kind of everyone could get behind it
Vitalik Buterin:
[...] in addition to taking you know the case that AI is going to kill everyone seriously I the other thing that I do is I take the case that you know AI is going to take create a totalitarian World Government seriously [...]
[...] then it's just going to go and kill everyone but on the other hand if you like take some of these uh you know like very naive default solutions to just say like hey you know let's create a powerful org and let's like put all the power into the org then yeah you know you are creating the most like most powerful big brother from which There Is No Escape and which has you know control over the Earth and and the expanding light cone and you can't get out right and yeah I mean this is something
that like uh I think a lot of people find very deeply scary I mean I find it deeply scary um it's uh it is also something that I think realistically AI accelerates right
One simple takeaway is that recognizing and addressing that motivation for anti-regulation and pro-AGI sentiment when trying to work with or around the e/acc movement. But a second is whether to take that fear seriously.
Is centralized power controlling AI/AGI/ASI a real risk?
Vitalik Buterin is from Russia, where centralized power has been terrifying. This has been the case for roughly half of the world. Those that are concerned with of risks of centralized power (including Western libertarians) are worried that AI increases that risk if it's centralized. This puts them in conflict with x-risk worriers on regulation and other issues.
I used to hold both of these beliefs, which allowed me to dismiss those fears:
1. AGI/ASI will be much more dangerous than tool AI, and it won't be controlled by humans
2. Centralized power is pretty safe (I'm from the West like most alignment thinkers).
Now I think both of these are highly questionable.
I've thought in the past that fears AI are largely unfounded. The much larger risk is AGI. And that is an even larger risk if it's decentralized/proliferated. But I've been progressively more convinced that Governments will take control of AGI before it's ASI, right?. They don't need to build it, just show up and inform the creators that as a matter of national security, they'll be making the key decisions about how it's used and aligned.[1]
If you don't trust Sam Altman to run the future, you probably don't like the prospect of Putin or Xi Jinping as world-dictator-for-eternal-life. It's hard to guess how many world leaders are sociopathic enough to have a negative empathy-sadism sum, but power does seem to select for sociopathy.
I've thought that humans won't control ASI, because it's value alignment or bust. There's a common intuition that an AGI, being capable of autonomy, will have its own goals, for good or ill. I think it's perfectly coherent for it...