Well, that didn’t occur, obviously. 

I sat down with MIT professor Max Tegmark, the founder and president of FLI, to take stock of what has happened since. Listed here are highlights of our conversation. 

On shifting the Overton window on AI risk: Tegmark told me that in conversations with AI researchers and tech CEOs, it had grow to be clear that there was an enormous amount of hysteria in regards to the existential risk AI poses, but no person felt they may talk about it openly “for fear of being ridiculed as Luddite scaremongerers.” “The important thing goal of the letter was to mainstream the conversation, to maneuver the Overton window so that folks felt protected expressing these concerns,” he says. “Six months later, it’s clear that part was a hit.”

But that’s about it: “What’s not great is that each one the businesses are still going full steam ahead and we still haven’t any meaningful regulation in America. It looks like US policymakers, for all their talk, aren’t going to pass any laws this 12 months that meaningfully rein in essentially the most dangerous stuff.”

Why the federal government should step in: Tegmark is lobbying for an FDA-style agency that may implement rules around AI, and for the federal government to force tech corporations to pause AI development. “It’s also clear that [AI leaders like Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis, and Dario Amodei] are very concerned themselves. But all of them know they’ll’t pause alone,” Tegmark says. Pausing alone can be “a disaster for his or her company, right?” he adds. “They only get outcompeted, after which that CEO will likely be replaced with someone who doesn’t need to pause. The one way the pause comes about is that if the governments of the world step in and put in place safety standards that force everyone to pause.” 

So how about Elon … ? Musk signed the letter calling for a pause, only to establish a latest AI company called X.AI to construct AI systems that may “understand the true nature of the universe.” (Musk is an advisor to the FLI.) “Obviously, he wants a pause identical to a variety of other AI leaders. But so long as there isn’t one, he feels he has to also stay in the sport.”

Why he thinks tech CEOs have the goodness of humanity of their hearts: “What makes me think that they really need a superb future with AI, not a foul one? I’ve known them for a few years. I talk with them often. And I can tell even in private conversations—I can sense it.” 

Response to critics who say specializing in existential risk distracts from current harms: “It’s crucial that those that care quite a bit about current problems and people who care about imminent upcoming harms work together relatively than infighting. I actually have zero criticism of people that concentrate on current harms. I believe it’s great that they’re doing it. I care about those things very much. If people engage in this type of infighting, it’s just helping Big Tech divide and conquer all those that want to actually rein in Big Tech.”