Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Request for collaborators - Survey on AI risk priorities

2 Post author: whpearson 06 February 2017 08:14PM

After some conversations here I thought I would try and find out what the community of people who care about AI risk think are the priorities for research.

To represent peoples opinions fairly I wanted to get input from people who care about the future of intelligence. Also I figure that other people will have more experience designing and analyzing surveys than me and getting their help or advice would be a good plan.

Planning document

Here is the planning document, give me a shout if you want edit rights. I'll be filling in the areas for research over the next week or so.

I'll set up a trello if I get a few people interested.

Comments (12)

Comment author: whpearson 07 February 2017 07:34:22PM 0 points [-]

I'm currently lacking people to put the more mainstream points across.

I'd like to know why people aren't interested in helping me.

Submitting...

Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 09 February 2017 11:24:50PM 0 points [-]

None of your survey choices seemed to fit me. I am concerned about and somewhat interested in AI risks. However, I currently would like to see more effort put into cryonics and reversing aging.

To be clear, I don't want to reduce the effort/resources currently put into AI risks. I just think they they are over weighted relative to cryonics and age reversal and would like to see any additional resource go to those until a better balance is achieved.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 February 2017 08:11:46PM 0 points [-]

Do you have a short write-up somewhere about what do you want to do and why other people should help you?

Comment author: whpearson 07 February 2017 08:49:05PM 0 points [-]

I want to gather information about what people care about in AI Risks. Other people should help me if they also want to gather information about what people care about in AI Risks.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 February 2017 09:13:59PM 0 points [-]

By "people" do you mean "LW people"? If you're interested in what the world cares about, running polls on LW will tell you nothing useful.

Comment author: whpearson 07 February 2017 09:20:10PM *  0 points [-]

Oh, you've not read the document I linked to in the post. I planned to try and get it posted in LW, EA forum and subreddits associated with AI and AIrisk.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 February 2017 10:02:37PM 0 points [-]

I looked at that document. I still don't see why do you think you'll be able to extract useful information out of a bunch of unqualified opinions (and a degree in psychology qualifies for AI risk discussions? really?) And why is the EA forum relevant to this?

Comment author: whpearson 07 February 2017 10:48:26PM 0 points [-]

I'm bound to get useful information as I am only interested in what people think. If you are interested in existential risk reduction, why wouldn't you be interested in what other people think? Surviving is a team sport.

Someone recommended EA here for existential risk discussion

Comment author: Lumifer 08 February 2017 05:13:23PM 0 points [-]

If you are interested in existential risk reduction, why wouldn't you be interested in what other people think?

For the same reasons quantum physicists don't ask the public which experiments they should run next.

Surviving is a team sport.

Errrr... That really depends X-)

Comment author: whpearson 08 February 2017 06:55:12PM 0 points [-]

For the same reasons quantum physicists don't ask the public which experiments they should run next.

But a quantum research institute that is funded via donations might ask the public which of the many experiments they want to run might attract funding. They can hire more researchers and answer more questions. Build good will etc.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 February 2017 07:04:25PM *  0 points [-]

Sure, he who pays the piper calls the tune :-) but I don't know if it's a good way to run science. However if you want to go in that direction, shouldn't your poll be addressed to potential (large) donors?