I’m surprised why this post is being downvoted. It takes a controversial topic but seems to talk reasonably through it?
(For those downvoting, maybe mention your reasons?)
Aayush Kucheria
Karma: 283
Good luck!
Here’s Bostrom’s letter about it (along with the email) for context: https://nickbostrom.com/oldemail.pdf
My initial answer was yes. But now that I think about it, all my EA connections have happened off-forum. Mostly on slack, email, and Facebook. Which I feel is kinda weird 🤔
I’m thinking of organizing an unofficial version of this in Finland. So this would be nice for sure :)
Maybe a typo: the second AI (EA) should be AI (Work)?
AI (EA) did not have to care about mundane problems such as “availability of relevant training data” or even “algorithms”: the only limit ever discussed was amount of computation, and that’s why AI (EA) was not there yet, but soon would be, when systems would have enough computational power to simulate human brains.
Btw, really like your writing style! :)
Awesome stuff! Have you increased the maximum limit of participants yet? (Asking before sending this to my community group in case it creates problems)
Very excited for this!
This looks like an experiment worth trying out on scale. Will sign up for the team when you start the process!
At least in my case, they asked me to reach out directly in the future if I wanted further help. I have the impression that they’re trying to help us in the long-term, and not as a one-off favour.
(Would be curious if anybody else has had a different experience!)
I second this! Initially I was of the opinion that it wouldn’t be helpful to me, but the advisor pointed out a few things I was missing which led me to significantly change my plans :)
Love this post!
That makes sense!
Thanks for posting this, was quite interesting!
I have one question if you don’t mind. The disadvantages you pose for lithium-ion batteries (capacity) and electrolysis with hydrogen (inefficiency) - are they problems that are inherent to the processes or can they potentially be solved?
It’s interesting how listening to the people who are present is the default approach but not the optimal one. So we need to go against the grain to listen to those who are not present as well.
Another counterintuitive concept I came across on this forum. Thanks for writing this post!
Doing something to democratize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) - thereby reducing the risk involved in testing new ideas and interventions.
RCTs are a popular methodology in medicine and the social sciences. They create a safety net for the scientists (and consumers) to test that the drug works as intended and doesn’t turn people into mutants.
I think using this methodology in other fields would be a high-leverage intervention. For example startups, policy-making, education, etc. Being able to try out new ideas without facing a huge downside should be a feature of every field. Big institutions already conduct similar tests before they release something. But I’m wondering how useful it would be to allow small institutions, startups, and maybe even individuals to do this.
Plus, adding an RCT into the launch pipeline of any intervention/product allows us to see the unintended consequences before they’re out there. I think this would have at least been helpful for the social media companies.
Based on some googling, I’ve understood that RCTs are very costly. But if the reasoning makes sense, this is exactly the kind of thing others can’t try out that a megaproject should.
Here’s a paraphrased quote by Eliezer Yudkowsky, that is relevant in this context: If people could learn from their mistakes without dying from them, well actually, that in itself would tend to fix a whole lot of problems over time. [source]
P.S. I’m thinking on working on this idea full-time in 2022. It would be very helpful to hear whatever criticism/thoughts you have—It’ll help me make sure my time is effectively spent.
I’m sorry, but I consider myself EA-adjacent-adjacent.