= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukeprog comments on A Scholarly AI Risk Wiki - 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 (56)
Not 100%, obviously. But most of the work developing the wiki would be paid work, if that's what you mean by "activity."
Well, as long as it's well curated and maintained, I suppose it could work... But why not work on making the less wrong wiki better? That comes attached to the website already.
Anyway, I'm not sure a new wiki has much of an advantage over "list of recent AI risk papers + links to youtube videos + less wrong wiki updated a bit more" for researchers - at least, not enough advantage to justify the costs. A few well-maintained pages ("AI risks", "friendly AI", "CEV", "counterarguments", "various models"), no more than a dozen at most, that summarise the core arguments with links to the more advanced stuff, should be enough for what we'd want, I feel.
You might be right. I do have 3 people right now improving the LW wiki and adding all the pages listed in the OP that aren't already in the LW wiki.