I spoke with an Anthropic employee, and came to understand that their definition of safety is more like "making AI be a tool that humans can use without hurting themselves or others more than they can already do". It's literally about how AI makes it easier for people to construct bombs, poisons, manipulation, and exploits. Consistent with their caution about releasing Mythos to unvetted actors. So it's not about superintelligence killing humanity, at least as far as this employee conveyed to me.
This means their strategy is more like:
1. If someone builds a market-leading unsafe strong AI, it may be misused in a damaging way by a large number of humans, undermining society and creating a catastrophic upheaval.
2. However, if the leading AI maker also works to make it safe against misuse, as long as the stay in the lead and keep it safe, then the ability of human bad actors to misuse the AI is limited. Given enough time, society will adapt to pretty much anything, so eventually there's no longer an arms race to stay ahead.
I don't really know whether I agree with their concerns, but I do think that (my understanding of) their principles is that they're reasonable, self-consistent, and they adhere to them in all their public and private actions.
Once you write enough code, you'll realize you need synchronization primitives for async code as well. In pretty much the same cases as threaded code.
You can't always choose to write straight code. What you're trying to do may require IO, and then that introduces concurrency, and the need for mutual exclusion or notification.
Examples: If there's a read-through cache, the cache needs some sort of lock inside of it. An async webserver might have a message queue.
The converse is also true. I've been writing some multithreaded code recently, and I don't want to or need to deal with mutexes, so, I use other patterns instead, like thread locals.
Now, for sure the async equivalents look and behave a lot better than the threaded ones. The Promise static methods (any, all, race, etc) are particularly useful. But, you could implement that for threads. I believe that this convenience difference is more due to modernity, of the threading model being, what 40, 50, 60 years old, and given a clean-ish slate to build a new model, modern language designers did better.
But it raises the idea: if we rethought OS-level preemptible concurrency today (don't call it threads!), could we modernize it and do better even than async?
In the area I live, houses are often built one complete room at a time, over many years. They start out as a single-room shack, then the owner builds extensions as they have children or money. Often, they build a porch, and then decades later wall up the porch and turn it into a room of some kind.
I kind of like this analogy because it does help us reason about the situation. The one-room shack is basically an MVP; a hacky result that just does one thing and probably poorly, but it is useful enough to justify its own existence. The giant mansion built from detailed architectural plans seems like a waterfall process for an enterprise application, doesn't it?
There are many advantages to building a house one room at a time. You get something to house you quickly and cheaply. When you build each extension, you have a very good idea of how it will be most useful because you know your needs well. You are more capable of taking advantage of sales (my neighbor collects construction overstock for free/cheap and starts building something once he has enough quantity to do so). It's more "agile". The resulting houses are beautiful in their own bespoke ways. They last a long time, too.
The downsides are that the services and structure are a hodgepodge of eras and necessity. If you're competent, you can avoid problems in your own work, but you may have to build on shoddy "legacy" work. You spend more of your time in a state of construction, and it may be infeasible to undertake a whole-house project like running ethernet to every room.
It's all tradeoffs. I think it does in many cases make sense to build a house in this way, and it likewise makes sense to build software this way. It depends on the situation.
This means their strategy is more like:
1. If someone builds a market-leading unsafe strong AI, it may be misused in a damaging way by a large number of humans, undermining society and creating a catastrophic upheaval.
2. However, if the leading AI maker also works to make it safe against misuse, as long as the stay in the lead and keep it safe, then the ability of human bad actors to misuse the AI is limited. Given enough time, society will adapt to pretty much anything, so eventually there's no longer an arms race to stay ahead.
I don't really know whether I agree with their concerns, but I do think that (my understanding of) their principles is that they're reasonable, self-consistent, and they adhere to them in all their public and private actions.