Supporting the community with this new competition is quite valuable. Thanks!
Here is an idea for how your impact might be amplified: For ever researcher that is somehow has full time funding to do AI safety research I suspect there are 10 qualified researchers with interest and novel ideas to contribute, but who will likely never be full time funded for AI safety work. Prizes like these can enable this much larger community to participate in a very capital efficient way.
But such “part time” contributions are likely to unfold over longer periods, and ideally would involve significant feedback from the full-time community in order to maximize the value of those contributions.
The previous prize required that all submissions be of never before published work. I understand the reasoning here. They wanted to foster NEW work. Still this rule drops a wet blanket on any part-timer who might want to gain feedback on ideas over time.
Here is an alternate rule that might have fewer unintended side effects: Only the portions of ones work that has never been awarded prize money in the past is eligible for consideration.
Such a rule would allow a part-timer to refine an important contribution with extensive feedback from the community over an extended period of time. Biasing towards fewer higher quality contributions in a field with so much uncertainty seems a worthy goal. Biasing towards greater numbers of contributors in such a small field also seems valuable from a diversity in thinking perspective too.
Supporting the community with this new competition is quite valuable. Thanks!
Here is an idea for how your impact might be amplified: For ever researcher that is somehow has full time funding to do AI safety research I suspect there are 10 qualified researchers with interest and novel ideas to contribute, but who will likely never be full time funded for AI safety work. Prizes like these can enable this much larger community to participate in a very capital efficient way.
But such “part time” contributions are likely to unfold over longer periods, and ideally would involve significant feedback from the full-time community in order to maximize the value of those contributions.
The previous prize required that all submissions be of never before published work. I understand the reasoning here. They wanted to foster NEW work. Still this rule drops a wet blanket on any part-timer who might want to gain feedback on ideas over time.
Here is an alternate rule that might have fewer unintended side effects: Only the portions of ones work that has never been awarded prize money in the past is eligible for consideration.
Such a rule would allow a part-timer to refine an important contribution with extensive feedback from the community over an extended period of time. Biasing towards fewer higher quality contributions in a field with so much uncertainty seems a worthy goal. Biasing towards greater numbers of contributors in such a small field also seems valuable from a diversity in thinking perspective too.