= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
katydee comments on Q&A #2 with Singularity Institute Executive Director - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (47)
Do you think that the same thing might be the case for other x-risks organizations? I recall that the previous analysis of other future tech safety/x-risks organizations didn't seem to find anything very promising-- might it be the case that those organizations also have stuff going on behind the scenes? If so, this seems like it might be a significant barrier to the greater x-risks community, since these organizations may be duplicating one another's results or otherwise inefficiently allocating their respective resources, volunteers, etc.
It's always the case that more research is being done than gets published. I know it's true for FHI, too. It's just especially true of SI.
I was thinking more about groups like Lifeboat or IEET, who don't really appear to be doing any research at all, as opposed to FHI/SIAI, who do at least occasionally publish.