You explained the difference between strategy and governance as governance being a more specific thing, but I’m not sure it’s a good idea in a specific place to separate and specialize in that way. What good does it bring to have governance separated from strategy ? Should experts in governance not communicate directly with experts in strategy (like should they only interface through public reports given from one group for the other?)
It seems to be governance was already a field thinking about the total strategy as well as specific implementations. I personally think of AI safety as Governance, Alignment and field building, and with the current post I don’t see why I should update that.
Thanks for commenting, Jonathan, it was helpful to hear your thoughts.
Sorry if I have been unclear. This post is not intended to show how I think things should be. I am instead trying to show how I think things are right now.
When doing that, I didn’t mean to suggest that experts in governance don’t communicate directly with experts in strategy.
As I said: “Many people in the AI Safety community are involved in more than one work group.” I also tried to show that there is an overlap in my Venn diagram.
> I personally think of AI safety as Governance, Alignment and field building, and with the current post I don’t see why I should update that.
I think that this is fine, and perhaps correct. However, right now, I still think that it is useful to tease those areas apart.
This is because I think that a lot of current work is related to strategy but not governance or the groups you mentioned. For instance, “What is happening in areas relevant to AI?” or how we should forecast progress based on biological anchors.
You explained the difference between strategy and governance as governance being a more specific thing, but I’m not sure it’s a good idea in a specific place to separate and specialize in that way. What good does it bring to have governance separated from strategy ? Should experts in governance not communicate directly with experts in strategy (like should they only interface through public reports given from one group for the other?)
It seems to be governance was already a field thinking about the total strategy as well as specific implementations. I personally think of AI safety as Governance, Alignment and field building, and with the current post I don’t see why I should update that.
Thanks for commenting, Jonathan, it was helpful to hear your thoughts.
Sorry if I have been unclear. This post is not intended to show how I think things should be. I am instead trying to show how I think things are right now.
When doing that, I didn’t mean to suggest that experts in governance don’t communicate directly with experts in strategy.
As I said: “Many people in the AI Safety community are involved in more than one work group.” I also tried to show that there is an overlap in my Venn diagram.
> I personally think of AI safety as Governance, Alignment and field building, and with the current post I don’t see why I should update that.
I think that this is fine, and perhaps correct. However, right now, I still think that it is useful to tease those areas apart.
This is because I think that a lot of current work is related to strategy but not governance or the groups you mentioned. For instance, “What is happening in areas relevant to AI?” or how we should forecast progress based on biological anchors.
Let me know what you think.