Thanks for writing the post and this comment, Lizka!
~deferring to a fairly narrow cluster of AI worldviews/paradigms (maybe roughly in the direction of what Joe Carlsmith/Buck/Ryan have written about)
I agree that most of Forethought (apart from you!) have views that are somewhat similar to Joe/Buck/Ryan’s, but I think that’s mostly not via deferral?
+1 to wanting people who can explore other perspectives, like Gradual Disempowerment, coalitional agency, AI personas, etc. And the stuff that you’ve been exploring!
I also agree that there’s some default more welfarist / consequentialist frame, though I think often we don’t actually endorse this on reflection. Also agree that there’s some shared thinking styles, though I think there’s a bit more diversity in training (we have people who majored in history, CS, have done empirical ML work, etc).
Also maybe general note, that on many of the axes you’re describing you are adding some of the diversity that you want, so Forethought-as-a-whole is a bit more diverse on these axes than Forethought-minus-Lizka.
Thanks for writing the post and this comment, Lizka!
I agree that most of Forethought (apart from you!) have views that are somewhat similar to Joe/Buck/Ryan’s, but I think that’s mostly not via deferral?
+1 to wanting people who can explore other perspectives, like Gradual Disempowerment, coalitional agency, AI personas, etc. And the stuff that you’ve been exploring!
I also agree that there’s some default more welfarist / consequentialist frame, though I think often we don’t actually endorse this on reflection. Also agree that there’s some shared thinking styles, though I think there’s a bit more diversity in training (we have people who majored in history, CS, have done empirical ML work, etc).
Also maybe general note, that on many of the axes you’re describing you are adding some of the diversity that you want, so Forethought-as-a-whole is a bit more diverse on these axes than Forethought-minus-Lizka.