like, twitter demands brevity & sharpness so I don't caveat and hedge everything tho it is super uncertain high dimensional question of how AI plays out and I am far from the most qualified to opine...

I take the optimistic point of view bec it suits my disposition and imo there's already a lot of doomer views being argued... but like, I could def be wrong and if so I hope my loyal opposition helps the hivemind narrow in on the truth

so I try to argue in good faith and stay somewhat open to the possibility I might be wrong but also somewhat stubborn to look for all the arguments against and not just agree for social harmony 🫶 (this is mostly note to self- remind me if necessary please!)

imo e/acc tweeting is net positive for the Safety perspective too: - debating against an opponent sharpens safety arguments, adversarial search for truth - 2 sided conflict draws attention to the issue n gives media a conflict to report on, all publicity is good publicity

- steering *towards* a desired outcome not just trying to avoid the scary outcome can help ppl envision the future - alt perspectives uncover useful ideas even if they're overall wrong- like my poll asking *why* we survive AI if in fact we do