Reasons for SIAI to not publish in mainstream journals

lukeprog

Recently, I gave some reasons for SIAI to begin publishing in mainstream journals, and outlined how it could be done.

I've recently been made aware of some pretty good reasons for SIAI to not publish in mainstream journals, so here they are:

Articles published to websites (e.g. Yudkowsky's work, Bostrom's pre-prints) seem to have gotten more attention, and had more positive impact, than their in-journal counterparts.
Articles in mainstream journals take a relatively large amount of time, money, and expertise to produce.
Articles in mainstream journals must jump through lots of hoops - journals' aversion to novelty, reviewer bias, etc.
It is easier to simply collaborate with (and greatly influence) established mainstream academics who have already jumped through mainstream academia's many hoops (as Carl Shulman has been doing, for example).

I still think there are strong reasons to publish articles in standard academic form (for readability purposes), but I've recently updated hugely toward SIAI not publishing in mainstream journals.

Recently, I gave some reasons for SIAI to begin publishing in mainstream journals, and outlined how it could be done.

I've recently been made aware of some pretty good reasons for SIAI to not publish in mainstream journals, so here they are:

Articles published to websites (e.g. Yudkowsky's work, Bostrom's pre-prints) seem to have gotten more attention, and had more positive impact, than their in-journal counterparts.
Articles in mainstream journals take a relatively large amount of time, money, and expertise to produce.
Articles in mainstream journals must jump through lots of hoops - journals' aversion to novelty, reviewer bias, etc.
It is easier to simply collaborate with (and greatly influence) established mainstream academics who have already jumped through mainstream academia's many hoops (as Carl Shulman has been doing, for example).

Indeed, math isn't science. ;)

I wonder - if Perelman was just "some guy" with no reputation as a mathematician, would anyone have noticed when he uploaded his proof?

Essentially yes, though he might have had to individually contact a few mathematicians to make his existence known. Consider the example of Ramanujan. Wpedia:

In 1912–1913, he sent samples of his theorems to three academics at the University of Cambridge. Only Hardy recognized the brilliance of his work, subsequently inviting Ramanujan to visit and work with him at Cambridge.

7nhamann15y

If you want to play that game, then it's not clear to me that the SIAI is doing "science" either, given that the focus is on existential risk due to AI (more like "philosophy" than "science") and formal friendliness (math). I think a better interpretation of your quote is to replace the word "science" with "disseminated scholarly communication."

20

Reasons for SIAI to not publish in mainstream journals

20

20

20

Reasons for SIAI to not publish in mainstream journals

20

20