Having been a news magazine editor, I'm somewhat of an expert on how well you did with in today's newsletter. Summary: outstanding!
#1: Great job with the lede! In addition to the dateline, you tell us that you are reporting from Paris and the AI Action Summit. Just one sentence and we are on the edges of our seats!
#2 Context: a journalist should assume the readers are intelligent, yet not knowledgeable. Your prolific use of links gets around having to describe each item that isn't general knowledge.
#4 I have only one suggestion for improving your newsletter. How about a link in each newsletter about your qualifications. I suggest emphasizing your world-class forecasting ability. That's probably related to your ability with integrative complexity.
I will be forwarding this newsletter to some of my colleagues.
Wow, thanks! Good point about emphasizing more my credentials, I could maybe include this in italics at the top. I'll try this out for the next edition.
Another nice piece - I'm glad you've started your newsletter.
One thing I would have liked to see mentioned here for the sake of a more complete picture - especially because this article may land as a fairly comprehensive high-level overview to readers - is something like '... and the problem with AI safety washing risk is that we can't really afford to collectively lull ourselves into a false sense of safety for any length of time given the properties of this particular kind of technology and the pace of its development [which you then describe very well]. So in this particular sense, there's a chance that voluntary commitments might not be merely ineffective but actually counter-productive, despite their positive potential in other directions'.
I'm a little surprised to hear you advocate not to rush to regulate - overregulation is a real risk, certainly, but wouldn't something as basic as enshrining voluntary commitments into binding law to prevent the backsliding be a net good?
Having been a news magazine editor, I'm somewhat of an expert on how well you did with in today's newsletter. Summary: outstanding!
#1: Great job with the lede! In addition to the dateline, you tell us that you are reporting from Paris and the AI Action Summit. Just one sentence and we are on the edges of our seats!
#2 Context: a journalist should assume the readers are intelligent, yet not knowledgeable. Your prolific use of links gets around having to describe each item that isn't general knowledge.
#3 You demonstrate the best integrative complexity practices. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/socialpsychology/chpt/integrative-complexity. Instead of a mere "both sides" approach, you do deep dives into how these varying approaches might integrate with each other. Research has shown that integrative complexity is the single strongest factor in forecasting success. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3779404
#4 I have only one suggestion for improving your newsletter. How about a link in each newsletter about your qualifications. I suggest emphasizing your world-class forecasting ability. That's probably related to your ability with integrative complexity.
I will be forwarding this newsletter to some of my colleagues.
Wow, thanks! Good point about emphasizing more my credentials, I could maybe include this in italics at the top. I'll try this out for the next edition.
Hi Peter,
Another nice piece - I'm glad you've started your newsletter.
One thing I would have liked to see mentioned here for the sake of a more complete picture - especially because this article may land as a fairly comprehensive high-level overview to readers - is something like '... and the problem with AI safety washing risk is that we can't really afford to collectively lull ourselves into a false sense of safety for any length of time given the properties of this particular kind of technology and the pace of its development [which you then describe very well]. So in this particular sense, there's a chance that voluntary commitments might not be merely ineffective but actually counter-productive, despite their positive potential in other directions'.
Keep it up!
I'm a little surprised to hear you advocate not to rush to regulate - overregulation is a real risk, certainly, but wouldn't something as basic as enshrining voluntary commitments into binding law to prevent the backsliding be a net good?