My main guess is “they mostly come from a math/CS background so haven’t looked at this through a psych/cogsci perspective and seen how it could be useful”.
That said, some of my stuff linked to above has been mostly met with a silence, and while I presume it’s a question of inferential silence—a sufficiently long inferential distance that a claim doesn’t provoke even objections, just uncomprehending or indifferent silence—there is also the possibility of me just being so wrong about the usefulness of my ideas that nobody’s even bothering to tell me.
What is your model of why other people in the AI safety field disagree with you/don’t consider this as important as you?
My main guess is “they mostly come from a math/CS background so haven’t looked at this through a psych/cogsci perspective and seen how it could be useful”.
That said, some of my stuff linked to above has been mostly met with a silence, and while I presume it’s a question of inferential silence—a sufficiently long inferential distance that a claim doesn’t provoke even objections, just uncomprehending or indifferent silence—there is also the possibility of me just being so wrong about the usefulness of my ideas that nobody’s even bothering to tell me.
Kaj, I tend to promote your stuff a fair amount to end the inferential silence, and it goes without saying that I agree with all else you said.
Don’t give up on your ideas or approach. I am dispirited that there are so few people thinking like you do out there.