This is a valuable synthesis! The SyDFAIS approach feels like it ties together the big-picture need for AI safety coordination with steps for coordinating organizations. I love how it moves beyond the usual “let’s fix AI safety” rhetoric and acknowledges that this is a multi-faceted problem that requires real collaboration and coordination among different players in the space.
It’s easy to assume we know all the key players or challenges, but your emphasis on mapping actual interactions feels crucial. We can’t just “fund our way” to better coordination; we need to understand who’s doing what, see how these organizations interact dynamically, and how these efforts overlap—or conflict.
One part that really caught my attention was Step 5 (Exploring the Possibility Space). It’s all too common in AI safety to keep rehashing the same interventions—fund more interpretability research, fund more policy fellows—but this step seems to challenge us to look for novel strategies and synergy across different fields. It’s a reminder we can’t just spend our way out of the alignment problem.
It’s easy to wave our hands about “holistic approaches,” but seeing those steps spelled out—Framing, Listening, Understanding, etc.—makes it much more tangible.
A couple of questions for anyone here: -Have you seen real-world success stories of a structured framework like this that dramatically improved coordination among diverse stakeholders? -Are there systems-based coordination efforts already happening among orgs within the AI safety space? Coming from an understanding of the entire system (or at least parts of it)
Keen to hear different viewpoints and any pushback, especially from those who’ve seen frameworks like this either flop or succeed in other complex domains.
This is a valuable synthesis! The SyDFAIS approach feels like it ties together the big-picture need for AI safety coordination with steps for coordinating organizations. I love how it moves beyond the usual “let’s fix AI safety” rhetoric and acknowledges that this is a multi-faceted problem that requires real collaboration and coordination among different players in the space.
It’s easy to assume we know all the key players or challenges, but your emphasis on mapping actual interactions feels crucial. We can’t just “fund our way” to better coordination; we need to understand who’s doing what, see how these organizations interact dynamically, and how these efforts overlap—or conflict.
One part that really caught my attention was Step 5 (Exploring the Possibility Space). It’s all too common in AI safety to keep rehashing the same interventions—fund more interpretability research, fund more policy fellows—but this step seems to challenge us to look for novel strategies and synergy across different fields. It’s a reminder we can’t just spend our way out of the alignment problem.
It’s easy to wave our hands about “holistic approaches,” but seeing those steps spelled out—Framing, Listening, Understanding, etc.—makes it much more tangible.
A couple of questions for anyone here:
-Have you seen real-world success stories of a structured framework like this that dramatically improved coordination among diverse stakeholders?
-Are there systems-based coordination efforts already happening among orgs within the AI safety space? Coming from an understanding of the entire system (or at least parts of it)
Keen to hear different viewpoints and any pushback, especially from those who’ve seen frameworks like this either flop or succeed in other complex domains.