Don't call it a "pause", as that messages that a pause is much weirder than it is

Eric Schmidt on CNN: "we're not going to pause AI progress because the entire incentive system in America is not to pause." And he added, it's hard to enforce a ban across all labs.

The part about inter-lab enforcement is important, but that's not the only thing he said. He also said, labs lucid about x-risk are incentivized to not pause. This is a rather bald-faced lie, as corporations are allowed to not do things that might destroy the corporation.

If p(doom) = 100% and it's common information (everyone knows everyone knows, ad infinitum), we simply use the word "can't", and we don't think twice about it. Someone still could, but that person is considered crazy, and our regulatory question is how to stop them.

I'm handwaving a lot of game theory here, but I don't crux on it when I say "don't call it a pause". In terms of the public debate, I'd like Eric Schmidt to assume burden of proof that the labs are required to do the dumb thing. I don't think he should get to hide behind the word "pause" when dismissing a pause as nonsense.

More shared knowledge to not do the dumb thing, is good, because we don't pay an overhead from mismodeling each other's incentives, and we can't disturb a "don't build it" equilibrium as easily.

Talking about a pause dilutes that shared knowledge. As long as the very concept of "pausing" is in our lexicon, rushing to build unsafe ASI is the default.

1. They all have different p(doom), which is an overly coarse concept, and additional x-risk for being the 2nd lab to act is a factor, and common information is shaky, and I don't know how to model what investors want. Plus, I don't know how to model, why did Eric Schmidt benefit from framing it like that, if he knows about x-risk in the first place.