CFAR’s new focus, and AI Safety

AnnaSalamon

51 CFAR’s new focus, and AI Safety

by AnnaSalamon

3rd Dec 2016

4 min read

51

A bit about our last few months:

We’ve been working on getting a simple clear mission and an organization that actually works. We think of our goal as analogous to the transition that the old Singularity Institute underwent under Lukeprog (during which chaos was replaced by a simple, intelligible structure that made it easier to turn effort into forward motion).
As part of that, we’ll need to find a way to be intelligible.
This is the first of several blog posts aimed at causing our new form to be visible from outside. (If you're in the Bay Area, you can also come meet us at tonight's open house.) (We'll be talking more about the causes of this mission-change; the extent to which it is in fact a change, etc. in an upcoming post.)

Here's a short explanation of our new mission:

We care a lot about AI Safety efforts in particular, and about otherwise increasing the odds that humanity reaches the stars.
Also, we[1] believe such efforts are bottlenecked more by our collective epistemology, than by the number of people who verbally endorse or act on "AI Safety", or any other "spreadable viewpoint" disconnected from its derivation.
Our aim is therefore to find ways of improving both individual thinking skill, and the modes of thinking and social fabric that allow people to think together. And to do this among the relatively small sets of people tackling existential risk.

To elaborate a little:

Existential wins and AI safety

By an “existential win”, we mean humanity creates a stable, positive future. We care a heck of a lot about this one.

Our working model here accords roughly with the model in Nick Bostrom’s book Superintelligence. In particular, we believe that if general artificial intelligence is at some point invented, it will be an enormously big deal.

(Lately, AI Safety is being discussed by everyone from The Economist to Newsweek to Obama to an open letter from eight thousand. But we’ve been thinking on this, and backchaining partly from it, since before that.)

Who we’re focusing on, why

Our preliminary investigations agree with The Onion’s; despite some looking, we have found no ultra-competent group of people behind the scenes who have fully got things covered.

What we have found are:

AI and machine learning graduate students, researchers, project-managers, etc. who care; who can think; and who are interested in thinking better;
Students and others affiliated with the “Effective Altruism” movement, who are looking to direct their careers in ways that can do the most good;
Rationality geeks, who are interested in seriously working to understand how the heck thinking works when it works, and how to make it work even in domains as confusing as AI safety.

These folks, we suspect, are the ones who can give humanity the most boost in its survival-odds per dollar of CFAR’s present efforts (which is a statement partly about us, but so it goes). We’ve been focusing on them.

(For the sake of everyone. Would you rather: (a) have bad rationality skills yourself; or (b) be killed by a scientist or policy-maker who also had bad rationality skills?)

Brier-boosting, not Signal-boosting

Everyone thinks they’re right. We do, too. So we have some temptation to take our own favorite current models of AI Safety strategy and to try to get everyone else to shut up about their models and believe ours instead.

This understandably popular activity is often called “signal boosting”, “raising awareness”, or doing “outreach”.

At CFAR, though, we force ourselves not to do “signal boosting” in this way. Our strategy is to spread general-purpose thinking skills, not our current opinions. It is important that we get the truth-seeking skills themselves to snowball across relevant players, because ultimately, creating a safe AI (or otherwise securing an existential win) is a research problem. Nobody, today, has copyable opinions that will get us there.

We like to call this “Brier boosting”, because a “Brier score” is a measure of predictive accuracy.

(song by CFAR alum Ray Arnold)

[1] By "We believe X", we do not mean to assert that every CFAR staff member individually believes X. (Similarly for "We care about Y). We mean rather that CFAR as an organization is planning/acting as though X is true. (Much as if CFAR promises you a rationality T-shirt, that isn't an individual promise from each of the individuals at CFAR; it is rather a promise from the organization as such.)

If we're going to build an art of rationality, we'll need to figure out how to create an organization where people can individually believe whatever the heck they end up actually believing as they chase the evidence, while also having the organization qua organization be predictable/intelligible.

ETA:

You may also want to check out two documents we posted in the days since this post:

Further discussion of CFAR’s focus on AI safety, and the good things folks wanted from “cause neutrality”
CFAR's mission statement (link post, linking to our website).

Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR)Project Announcement

Frontpage

51

New Comment

Rendering 0/88 comments, sorted by

top scoring

(show more) Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 6:23 PM

Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings

Moderation Log

51 CFAR’s new focus, and AI Safety

by AnnaSalamon

3rd Dec 2016

4 min read

51

A bit about our last few months:

We’ve been working on getting a simple clear mission and an organization that actually works. We think of our goal as analogous to the transition that the old Singularity Institute underwent under Lukeprog (during which chaos was replaced by a simple, intelligible structure that made it easier to turn effort into forward motion).
As part of that, we’ll need to find a way to be intelligible.
This is the first of several blog posts aimed at causing our new form to be visible from outside. (If you're in the Bay Area, you can also come meet us at tonight's open house.) (We'll be talking more about the causes of this mission-change; the extent to which it is in fact a change, etc. in an upcoming post.)

Here's a short explanation of our new mission:

We care a lot about AI Safety efforts in particular, and about otherwise increasing the odds that humanity reaches the stars.
Also, we[1] believe such efforts are bottlenecked more by our collective epistemology, than by the number of people who verbally endorse or act on "AI Safety", or any other "spreadable viewpoint" disconnected from its derivation.
Our aim is therefore to find ways of improving both individual thinking skill, and the modes of thinking and social fabric that allow people to think together. And to do this among the relatively small sets of people tackling existential risk.

To elaborate a little:

Existential wins and AI safety

By an “existential win”, we mean humanity creates a stable, positive future. We care a heck of a lot about this one.

Who we’re focusing on, why

Our preliminary investigations agree with The Onion’s; despite some looking, we have found no ultra-competent group of people behind the scenes who have fully got things covered.

What we have found are:

AI and machine learning graduate students, researchers, project-managers, etc. who care; who can think; and who are interested in thinking better;
Students and others affiliated with the “Effective Altruism” movement, who are looking to direct their careers in ways that can do the most good;
Rationality geeks, who are interested in seriously working to understand how the heck thinking works when it works, and how to make it work even in domains as confusing as AI safety.

(For the sake of everyone. Would you rather: (a) have bad rationality skills yourself; or (b) be killed by a scientist or policy-maker who also had bad rationality skills?)

Brier-boosting, not Signal-boosting

This understandably popular activity is often called “signal boosting”, “raising awareness”, or doing “outreach”.

We like to call this “Brier boosting”, because a “Brier score” is a measure of predictive accuracy.

(song by CFAR alum Ray Arnold)

ETA:

You may also want to check out two documents we posted in the days since this post:

Further discussion of CFAR’s focus on AI safety, and the good things folks wanted from “cause neutrality”
CFAR's mission statement (link post, linking to our website).

Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR)Project Announcement

Frontpage

51

Mentioned in

92The Craft & The Community - A Post-Mortem & Resurrection

65What exactly is the "Rationality Community?"

65Further discussion of CFAR’s focus on AI safety, and the good things folks wanted from “cause neutrality”

20The Story CFAR

New Comment

Rendering 0/88 comments, sorted by

top scoring

(show more) Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 6:23 PM

Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings

Moderation Log

More from AnnaSalamon

Curated and popular this week

88Comments

Comment Permalink

James_Miller9y70

To coordinate we need a leader that many of us would sacrifice for. The obvious candidates are Eliezer Yudkowsky, Peter Thiel, and Scott Alexander. Perhaps we should develop a process by which a legitimate, high-quality leader could be chosen.

Edit: I see mankind as walking towards a minefield. We are almost certainly not in the minefield yet, at our current rate we will almost certainly hit the minefield this century, lots of people don't think the minefield exists or think that fate or God will protect us from the minefield, and competitive pressures (Moloch) make lots of people individually better off if they push us a bit faster towards this minefield.

Showing 3 of 4 replies (Click to show all)

MrMind9y00

I see two unrelated sub-problems: one of prediction and one of coordination.

We already know that experts are better than layman, but differentiated groups perform better at prediction than experts. Thus, a decisions took by an aggregated prediction market will be better in terms of accuracy, but the problem here is that people in general do not coordinate well in a horizontal structure.

13sarahconstantin9y

If anyone's mind is in a place where they think they'd be more productive or helpful if they sacrificed themselves for a leader, then, with respect, I think the best thing they can do for protecting humanity's future is to fix that problem in themselves.

16John_Maxwell9y

If Alyssa Vance is correct that the community is bottlenecked on idea generation, I think this is exactly the wrong way to respond. My current view is that increasing hierarchy has the advantage of helping people coordinate better, but it has the disadvantage that people are less creative in a hierarchical context. Isaac Asimov on brainstorming: [...] I believe this has already happened to the community through the quasi-deification of people like Eliezer, Scott, and Gwern. It's odd, because I generally view the LW community as quite nontraditional. But when I look at academia, I get the impression that college professors are significantly closer in status to their students than our intellectual leadership. This is my steelman of people who say LW is a cult. It's not a cult, but large status differences might be a sociological "code smell" for intellectual communities. Think of the professor who insists that they always be addressed as "Dr. Jones" instead of being called by their first name. This is rarely the sort of earnest, energetic, independent-minded person who makes important discoveries. "The people I know who do great work think that they suck, but that everyone else sucks even more." The problem is compounded by the fact that Eliezer, Scott, and Gwern are not actually leaders. They're high status, but they aren't giving people orders. This leads to leadership vacuums. My current guess is that we should work on idea generation at present, then transform into a more hierarchical community when it's obvious what needs to be done. I don't know what the best community structure for idea generation is, but I suspect the university model is a good one: have a selective admissions process, while keeping the culture egalitarian for people who are accepted. At least this approach is proven.

See in context