Cross-posting from my coworker Caspar Oesterheld's blog which I think is great and generally not well known. I’ve recently been working a little on whether consistency across different questions can be used as a measure of (and perhaps ultimately as a training target for) philosophical competence. I’m in the process...
Edit: The original title was unnecessarily provocative. This was a very quick post inspired by talking to someone who assumed that a large fraction of the safety community are working on directly figuring out how to align superintelligent AIs. Obviously much (all?) of what the rest of the safety community...
Tl;dr: We have a dataset for conceptual reasoning which you can request access for if you would like to use it for AI safety (or related) research. We consider the dataset half-baked and it will likely become much more useful over the next few months. At the same time, we...
I’ve spent a lot of the last few years working on issues related to acausal cooperation. With LLMs being clearly dominant over recent years, I’ve now led a team to make a benchmark to figure out how good LLMs are at decision theory and whether and when they lean more...
Summary In this post, we explore different ways of understanding and measuring malevolence and explain why individuals with concerning levels of malevolence are common enough, and likely enough to become and remain powerful, that we expect them to influence the trajectory of the long-term future, including by increasing both x-risks...
Summary * We don’t have good proposals for alignment targets: The most recently published version of Coherent Extrapolated Volition (CEV), a fairly prominent alignment target, is Parliamentarian CEV (PCEV). PCEV gives a lot of extra influence to anyone who intrinsically values hurting other individuals (search the CEV arbital page for...