Aimed at solving alignment problem, going one by one: 1) yes, because you need to develop AI that does good in order to check for such aspects at other AI—although sure, SDGs may not exactly define impartial good, 2) no, because it is just already developed tools that advance SDGs, 3) no, it is just using drones for SDGs rather than research, 4) no, using drones for wild animal welfare not research, 5) yes, AI policy in the EU can contribute to global AI alignment, 6) yes, social media optimization objectives may determine public interest in these objectives so if wellbeing is offered by AI it may be demanded by humans—so, it is like human RL which we should get right first, 7) yes, alignment potential, 8) yes, outer and inner alignment potential if outer alignment is understood by other institutions that focus on it, 9) yes, by definition—AI safety in any location contributes to alignment, 10) no, this is using technology to solicit donations, 11) no, this is personal advocacy, 12) no, this is objectives advancement, 13) no, this is also objectives advancement, 14) no, also supporting goals with already developed technology, 15) yes, one needs to understand values in order to align for them, 16) no, it is a use of technology rather than research—as you are defining alignment by research not the actual advancement of the alignment, 17) yes, this is the research but you can argue no because it is coordinating not researching, 18) no, gaining interest of researchers and persons who can deploy AI, 19) no, it is data collection not use for research of inner alignment although perhaps outer alignment if you have a global governance AI that makes decisions, 20) no, it is learning not executing (although can contribute to alignment in general). So, you are right, most is not alignment if you define it by research but I would have to re-run my analysis if alignment is also defined by deployment of objectives using AI.
Yes, these are vague—I wish I had more specific recommendations—working in this and that position and adding exactly one of these pieces of code, running the existing code by a checking software or an organization of humans, or looking for particular outcomes in the present moment and employing sound practices to see if any outcomes may occur in the future.
Yes, these are competitive. I did not realize the framing when I was writing this, I was just thinking about some cool ideas .. I edited this as DeepMind and OpenAI adjacent research—anyone can do that.
Yes the title is now AI and impact to better reflect the content.
most of these aren’t aimed at solving the alignment problem
some that are are incredibly vague (“outer alignment research coordination”)
various mistakes; e.g. OpenAI and Deepmind are in fact extremely competitive
The title should not mention AI alignment at all since there are a variety of objectives
Aimed at solving alignment problem, going one by one: 1) yes, because you need to develop AI that does good in order to check for such aspects at other AI—although sure, SDGs may not exactly define impartial good, 2) no, because it is just already developed tools that advance SDGs, 3) no, it is just using drones for SDGs rather than research, 4) no, using drones for wild animal welfare not research, 5) yes, AI policy in the EU can contribute to global AI alignment, 6) yes, social media optimization objectives may determine public interest in these objectives so if wellbeing is offered by AI it may be demanded by humans—so, it is like human RL which we should get right first, 7) yes, alignment potential, 8) yes, outer and inner alignment potential if outer alignment is understood by other institutions that focus on it, 9) yes, by definition—AI safety in any location contributes to alignment, 10) no, this is using technology to solicit donations, 11) no, this is personal advocacy, 12) no, this is objectives advancement, 13) no, this is also objectives advancement, 14) no, also supporting goals with already developed technology, 15) yes, one needs to understand values in order to align for them, 16) no, it is a use of technology rather than research—as you are defining alignment by research not the actual advancement of the alignment, 17) yes, this is the research but you can argue no because it is coordinating not researching, 18) no, gaining interest of researchers and persons who can deploy AI, 19) no, it is data collection not use for research of inner alignment although perhaps outer alignment if you have a global governance AI that makes decisions, 20) no, it is learning not executing (although can contribute to alignment in general). So, you are right, most is not alignment if you define it by research but I would have to re-run my analysis if alignment is also defined by deployment of objectives using AI.
Yes, these are vague—I wish I had more specific recommendations—working in this and that position and adding exactly one of these pieces of code, running the existing code by a checking software or an organization of humans, or looking for particular outcomes in the present moment and employing sound practices to see if any outcomes may occur in the future.
Yes, these are competitive. I did not realize the framing when I was writing this, I was just thinking about some cool ideas .. I edited this as DeepMind and OpenAI adjacent research—anyone can do that.
Yes the title is now AI and impact to better reflect the content.