Former OpenAI Policy Staff Pushes Back on Scott Alexander's AI Safety Essay Over 'Near Nation-State Power' Premise
Miles_Brundage · x · 2026-11-03
Miles Brundage amplifies Nat Purser's (ex-OpenAI policy) point-by-point response to Scott Alexander's widely praised AI safety essay, which ryankidd44 calls the one safety post to read this year.
- Purser agrees with Alexander that 'but what about China?' arguments deserve serious engagement, even though they're often deployed in bad faith by hardline safety opponents.
- He finds the essay's Section IV assumptions 'deeply troubling': scenarios anchor on AI companies wielding near nation-state power and unilaterally deciding whether to hand it to government.
- He also quips that the community 'really needs editors' — the pieces should be 30% shorter.
Related event: AI Safety Essay Sparks Debate Over Pause Politics and Corporate Power(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Burkov: P=NP will never be proven unless a human writes the proof — burkov · 2026-11-03
- A green-text thread on p(doom): solar's 80% price drop undercuts AI doomerism — prasanna_says · 2026-11-03
- signull: Human EQ is rare because its inference cost is brutally expensive — signulll · 2026-11-03
- Software is shifting from winner-take-all to a restaurant-style long-tail market — tinyfool · 2026-11-03
- The Russell Conjugations of Intelligence: Why 'Just Matrix Multiplication' Offends Us for Brains but Not for AI — esrtweet · 2026-11-03
- AI safety researcher: assuming all emergence is risk may be the wrong frame — repligate · 2026-11-03