Darren McKee

Karma: 408

Darren McKee 19 Jun 2022 11:30 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: AGI Safety Communications Initiative
Interesting initiative. We should connect because...
FYI: I’m working on a book about the threat of AGI/ASI for a general audience. I hope it will be of value to the cause and the community—EA Forum (effectivealtruism.org)

Darren McKee 15 Nov 2022 0:45 UTC
16 points
4 ∶ 0
on: The NY Times Interviewed SBF on Sunday
“Meanwhile, at a meeting with Alameda employees on Wednesday, Ms. Ellison explained what had caused the collapse, according to a person familiar with the matter. Her voice shaking, she apologized, saying she had let the group down. Over recent months, she said, Alameda had taken out loans and used the money to make venture capital investments, among other expenditures.
Around the time the crypto market crashed this spring, Ms. Ellison explained, lenders moved to recall those loans, the person familiar with the meeting said. But the funds that Alameda had spent were no longer easily available, so the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang.”

Darren McKee 27 Feb 2023 19:18 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: 80,000 Hours has been putting much more resources into growing our audience
Thanks for sharing. Do you happen to have the number of books you sent out (as you’ve already given the cost). Just wondering if my current estimate of around 30000 is close.

Darren McKee 28 Feb 2023 0:01 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Geoffrey Miller’s comment on: Seeking input on a list of AI books for broader audience
Mighty kind of you. I’ll be in touch.

Darren McKee 28 Feb 2023 9:27 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: LoveAndPeaceAlways’s comment on: Seeking input on a list of AI books for broader audience
Oops, looks like I read that last July (and didn’t agree with the general thesis). Thanks for the comment.

Darren McKee 15 Mar 2023 22:19 UTC
5 points
2 ∶ 0
on: 80k podcast episode on sentience in AI systems
Thought that this was filled with interesting ideas. Thank you.

If open to constructive feedback, I think that there is an opportunity (mainly for host but also perhaps you as guest) to reduce the amount of ‘likes’ that are equivalent to ‘ums’ in your speech.

This may be cultural/generational, and perhaps few others care, but personally I found parts hard to listen to because there were so many ‘likes’.

I couldn’t help but be curious, so I did a search on the transcript and it pops up 577 times (of course, a decent chunk of those are not filler but part of normal speech).

Darren McKee 16 Mar 2023 10:51 UTC
16 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Write a Book?
I am fully supportive of more books coming out on EA related topics. I’ve also always enjoyed your writings.

As someone trying to write a book about the threat of AI for a broader audience, I’ve learned that you should have a good idea of your goal for the book’s distribution. Meaning, is your goal to get this published by a publisher?
Or self-publish? An eCopy or audiobook?

To get something published, you typically need an agent. To get an agent you usually need a one-page pitch, a writing sample, and perhaps an outline.

If no agent is interested, it is a risk to write the book if you want a third party to publish it.

Darren McKee 24 Mar 2023 11:07 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The Overton Window widens: Examples of AI risk in the media
Thanks for the compilation! This might be helpful for the book I’m writing.
One of my aspirations was to throw a brick through the overton window regarding AI safety, but things have already changed with more and more stuff coming out like what you’ve listed.

Darren McKee 26 Mar 2023 18:29 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Harrison Durland’s comment on: My attempt at explaining the case for AI risk in a straightforward way
Interesting points. I’m working on a book which is not quite a solution to your issue but hopefully goes in the same direction.
And I’m now curious to see that memo :)

Darren McKee 27 Mar 2023 12:58 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Harrison Durland’s comment on: My attempt at explaining the case for AI risk in a straightforward way
I was referring to external credibility if you are looking for a scientific paper with the key ideas. Secondarily, an online, modular guide is not quite the frame of the book either (although it could possible be adapted towards such a thing in the future)

Darren McKee 25 Apr 2023 15:38 UTC
5 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Talking publicly about AI risk
Thank you for a great post and the outreach you are doing. We need more posts and discussions about optimal framing.

Darren McKee 6 May 2023 15:22 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: AGI rising: why we are in a new era of acute risk and increasing public awareness, and what to do now
FYI, I’m working on a book about the risks of AGI/ASI for a general and I hope to get it out within 6 months. It likely won’t be as alarmist as your post but will try to communicate the key messages, the importance, the risks, and the urgency. Happy to have more help.

Darren McKee 6 May 2023 15:23 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: JakubK’s comment on: Seeking input on a list of AI books for broader audience
Thanks for sharing, this and the others. I read that one and it was a bit more about the rationality community than the risks. (It’s in the list with a different title)

Darren McKee 10 May 2023 11:31 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Greg_Colbourn’s comment on: AGI rising: why we are in a new era of acute risk and increasing public awareness, and what to do now
I’m definitely aware of that complication but I don’t think that is the best way to broader impact. Uncertainty abounds. If I can get it out in 3 months, I will.

Darren McKee 30 Jun 2023 9:32 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Munk AI debate: confusions and possible cruxes
Great post!

A and B about 30 years are useful ideas/talking points. Thanks for the reminder/articulation!

Darren McKee 12 Aug 2023 8:56 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Pato’s comment on: Seeking Input to AI Safety Book for non-technical audience
Noted. I find many are stuck on the ‘how’. That said, some polls have 2/3rds or 3/4ths of people consider AI might harm humanity, so it isn’t entirely clear who needs to hear which arguments/analysis.

Darren McKee 12 Aug 2023 8:57 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Chris Leong’s comment on: Seeking Input to AI Safety Book for non-technical audience
Thank you.
I quite like the “we don’t have a lot of time” part, both in the fact that we’d need to prepare in advance, and because making decisions under time pressure is almost always worse.

Darren McKee 21 Sep 2023 22:47 UTC
23 points
2 ∶ 0
on: The Case for AI Safety Advocacy to the Public
Great post. I can’t help but agree the broad idea given that I’m just finishing up a book that has the main goal of raising awareness of AI safety to a broader audience. Non-technical, average citizens, policy makers, etc. Hopefully out in November.

I’m happy your post exists even if I have (minor?) differences on strategy. Currently, I believe the US Gov sees AI as a consumer item so they link it to innovation and economic good and important things. (Of course, given recent activity, there is some concern about the risks). As such, I’m advocating for safe innovation with firm rules/regs that enable that. If those bars can’t be met, then we obviously shouldn’t have unsafe innovation. I sincerely want good things from advanced AI, but not if it will likely harm everyone.

Darren McKee 26 Nov 2023 18:17 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: DaneelO’s comment on: Announcing New Beginner-friendly Book on AI Safety and Risk
Sure do! As I said in the second last bullet it is in progress :)
(hopefully within the next two weeks)

Darren McKee 27 Nov 2023 12:44 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: BNorman’s comment on: Announcing New Beginner-friendly Book on AI Safety and Risk
It’s a tricky balance and I don’t think that there is a perfect solution. The issue that both the Title and the Cover have to be intriguing and compelling (also, ideally, short / immediately understandable). What will intrigue some will be less appealing to others.
So, I could have had a question mark, or some other less dramatic image… but when not only safety researchers but the CEOs of the leading AI companies believe the product that they are developing could lead to extinction, I believe that this is alarming. This is an alarming fact about the world. That drove the cover.
The inside is more nuanced and cautious.