This post—which I found interesting and useful—feels relevant in relation to your first point. A relevant excerpt:
We can approach ‘figuring out what to do’ at three different levels of directness (which are inspired by the same kind of goal hierarchy as the Values-to-Actions Chain).
Most indirectly, we can ask ‘what should we value?’ We call that values research, which is roughly the same as ethics.
From our values, we can derive a high-level goal to strive for. For longtermism values, such a goal could be minimize existential risk.[1] For another set of values , such as animal-inclusive neartermism, the high-level goal could be to minimize the aggregate suffering of farm animals.[2]
More directly, we can ask ‘given our goal, how can we best achieve it?’ We call the research to answer that question strategy research. The result of strategy research is a number of strategic goals embedded in a strategic plan. For example, in existential risk reduction, strategy research could determine how to best allocate resources between reducing various existential risks based on their relative risk levels and timelines.
Most directly, we can ask ‘given our strategic plan, how should we execute it?’ We call the research to answer that question tactics research. Tactics research is similar to strategy research, but is at a more direct level. This makes tactics more specific. For example, in existential risk reduction, tactics research could be taking one of the sub goals from a strategic plan, say ‘reduce the competitive dynamics surrounding human-level AI’, and ask a specific question that deals with part of the issue: ‘How can we foster trust and cooperation between the US and Chinese governments on AI development?’ In general, less direct questions have more widely relevant answers, but they also provide less specific recommendations for actions to take.
Finally, the plans can be implemented based on the insights from the three research levels.
(I added two line breaks and changed where the diagram was, compared to the original text.)
(That post was written on behalf of my former employer, but not by me, and before I was aware of them.)
This post—which I found interesting and useful—feels relevant in relation to your first point. A relevant excerpt:
(I added two line breaks and changed where the diagram was, compared to the original text.)
(That post was written on behalf of my former employer, but not by me, and before I was aware of them.)