Okay, if we suspect peer review will eventually happen but the process will be very slow, then it might still be worthwhile to commission an external review, whether through The Unjournal. I once actually did this with my own money just because I was really, desperately curious about a pre-print published by a company that would never be submitted for peer review. I think it ended up costing me $400-500, something like that.
Whether it’s worth the time, effort, and money depends on how much people actually care about this pre-print and think it’s important. Does anyone actually, sincerely think whether we’re on the cusp of apocalypse/​utopia hangs on whether this pre-print is correct or not? How much is this particular pre-print actually a crux for anyone?
If it is actually a crux on which people’s expectations around AGI within the next decade hang, then it’s probably worth paying the $500 or $1,000 or whatever it costs to do a review. But if it isn’t on anyone’s top 10 list or even top 20 list of most important pieces of evidence for near-term AGI, then I guess… it probably doesn’t matter whether the pre-print’s findings are true or false.
The argument from an AI safety perspective about why it would be a cost-effective use of funds is straightforward. First, knowing whether the pre-print’s findings stand up under scrutiny are important insofar as the informational content of the pre-print is important for understanding AI. Second, there is currently very little high-quality evidence, and especially very little academic-calibre evidence, to present to skeptics who want to be convinced that an existentially consequential AGI is on the horizon. What could convince them? Well, potentially scientific evidence of this sort. And if your hopes or plans for AI safety depend on, or would be greatly helped by, the ability to bring skeptics on board, well, then it’s worth a relatively small investment to marshal evidence to convince skeptics.
Another potential candidate for external review is the Remote Labor Index pre-print. But the same caveat applies.
Oh, and the preprint will almost certainly be submitted for peer review, but it might take 1-2 years before it is published.
Okay, if we suspect peer review will eventually happen but the process will be very slow, then it might still be worthwhile to commission an external review, whether through The Unjournal. I once actually did this with my own money just because I was really, desperately curious about a pre-print published by a company that would never be submitted for peer review. I think it ended up costing me $400-500, something like that.
Whether it’s worth the time, effort, and money depends on how much people actually care about this pre-print and think it’s important. Does anyone actually, sincerely think whether we’re on the cusp of apocalypse/​utopia hangs on whether this pre-print is correct or not? How much is this particular pre-print actually a crux for anyone?
If it is actually a crux on which people’s expectations around AGI within the next decade hang, then it’s probably worth paying the $500 or $1,000 or whatever it costs to do a review. But if it isn’t on anyone’s top 10 list or even top 20 list of most important pieces of evidence for near-term AGI, then I guess… it probably doesn’t matter whether the pre-print’s findings are true or false.
The argument from an AI safety perspective about why it would be a cost-effective use of funds is straightforward. First, knowing whether the pre-print’s findings stand up under scrutiny are important insofar as the informational content of the pre-print is important for understanding AI. Second, there is currently very little high-quality evidence, and especially very little academic-calibre evidence, to present to skeptics who want to be convinced that an existentially consequential AGI is on the horizon. What could convince them? Well, potentially scientific evidence of this sort. And if your hopes or plans for AI safety depend on, or would be greatly helped by, the ability to bring skeptics on board, well, then it’s worth a relatively small investment to marshal evidence to convince skeptics.
Another potential candidate for external review is the Remote Labor Index pre-print. But the same caveat applies.