1.
I don’t have a definition of x-risk expertise. I think the quality of x-risk expertise is currently ascribed to people i) with a track record of important contributions to x-risk reduction ii) subjective peer approval from other experts.
I think a more objective way to evaluate x-risk expertise would be extremely valuable.
2.
Possible signs of a value mis-aligned actor:
if they don’t value impact maximisation, they may focus on ineffective solutions, perhaps based
on their interests
if they don’t value high epistemic standards, they may hold beliefs that they cannot rationally justify, and may make more avoidable bad/risky decisions
if they don’t value the far future, they may make decisions that hare high risk for the far future
I also think good judgement and decision-making results from a combination of qualities of the individual and qualities of their social network. Plausibly, one could make much better decisions if they have frequent truth-seeking dialogue with relevant domain experts with divergent views.
1. I don’t have a definition of x-risk expertise. I think the quality of x-risk expertise is currently ascribed to people i) with a track record of important contributions to x-risk reduction ii) subjective peer approval from other experts.
I think a more objective way to evaluate x-risk expertise would be extremely valuable.
2. Possible signs of a value mis-aligned actor:
if they don’t value impact maximisation, they may focus on ineffective solutions, perhaps based on their interests
if they don’t value high epistemic standards, they may hold beliefs that they cannot rationally justify, and may make more avoidable bad/risky decisions
if they don’t value the far future, they may make decisions that hare high risk for the far future
3. see http://effective-altruism.com/ea/1tu/bottlenecks_and_solutions_for_the_xrisk_ecosystem/foo
I also think good judgement and decision-making results from a combination of qualities of the individual and qualities of their social network. Plausibly, one could make much better decisions if they have frequent truth-seeking dialogue with relevant domain experts with divergent views.