Great to see this initiative, Vael. I can think of several project ideas that could use this dataset of interviews with researchers.
Edit:
-
Analyse transcripts to identify behaviours that researchers and you describe as safe or unsafe, and identify influences on those behaviours (this would need validation with follow up work). Outcome would be an initial answer to the concrete question “who needs to do what differently to improve AI safety in research, and how”
-
Use the actors identified in the interviews to create a system/actor map to help understand flows of influence and information. Outcome: a better understanding of power dynamics of the system and opportunities for influence.
-
With information about the researchers themselves (especially of there are 90+), could begin to create a typology / segmentation to try and understand which types are more open / closed to discussions of safety, and why. Outcome: a strategy for outreach or further work to change decision making and behaviour towards AI safety.
Thanks for this Sean! I think work like this is exceptionally useful as introductory information for busy people who are likely to pattern match “advanced AI” to “terminator” or “beyond time horizon”.
One piece of feedback I’ll offer is to encourage you to consider whether it’s possible to link narrow AI ethics concerns to AGI alignment in a way that your last point, “there is work that can be done” shows how current efforts to address narrow AI issues can be linked to AGI. This is especially relevant for governance. This could help people understand why it’s important to address AGI issues now, rather than waiting until narrow AI ethics is “fixed” (a misperception I’ve seen a few times).