step-function research and monotonic research.
Some agendas are step-function. Maybe interuniversal teichmuller theory is an example, if it reaches the threshold where it solves ABC then it pays out, and if it doesn't its payout is approximately zero [1] . Something something MIRI's logic team [2] .
Other agendas are monotonic. The more you do, the more you pay out. I think what I do, program synthesis security (which Mike Dodds calls "scalable formal oversight") for defensive acceleration, is like this. I might be able to reduce some monotonic function of 40% of the attack surface by doing 40% of my job, its better to do more but not a waste of time to do less. This is related to, but distinct from, what John and David sometimes talk about re multi-theory-of-change robustness (i.e. that robustness can be a route toward an agenda being monotonic).
Not sure how to reason about "linear vs superlinear vs sublinear" here. How would you even tell?
caveat, mathematicians don't make a habit of making bets on which tool stacks will prove useful for what purposes. ITT may or may not end up helping with something other than the ABC conjecture (which it failed at), MIRI's logic team outputs may end up (and, IMO at least in terms of my own epistemic development, have) helping with something other than solving AGI alignment. ↩︎
tonal clarification, I have a deep respect for the MIRI logic team, I think they displayed both courage and intellectual prowess that are aeons beyond me. I wouldn't call them out here if I didn't think many of them agree that what they were trying to do was mostly step-function. ↩︎
Thanks for your reply
$1k today.
1
1I'm confused about how I relate to this personally.
I've been it feels almost wildly successful lately, or at least more successful than I thought I'd be, and its all downstream of a paper. And I'm not sure how that paper exists without Lighthaven (met coauthor as a guest/office visitor during a MATS semester, and it was at Lighthaven that Buck argued that we should pivot from novel architecture proposal to eval). To say nothing of what I owe to LessWrong! I really owe a lot to you guys, intellectually and emotionally but also you could operationalize it as literal cash. It would be a grievous free rider problem for me to donate under four figures, a case could be made for five (since I'm not GWWC 10%ing just yet).
At the same time: I don't really know how to donate anywhere, emotionally, in a world where I don't have a plan to build a family yet, I don't know who I'm going to end up building a family with yet, etc. I'm neurotic about savings, my net worth, my income. I took a major pay cut to work at a research nonprofit, which pays as far as I know a decent chunk below median AI safety research nonprofit.
Plus all the other baggage that comes with the feeling of if I donate at all its not to bednets its to the place where I've been to 764 parties. There, it feels more like consumption than donation. Which is mostly fine, its a minor weight in my overall confusedness, but its still a thing.
I think not being a free rider is pretty loadbearing in my overall moral calculus, in life. I just don't know to the tune of how much. Not to mention my credit card has taken a real beating from a low five figure medical bill this year and a move across the country.
@oli can I just tell you my net worth and income, estimate how much cash that paper has gotten me so far, and you tell me how much I should donate?
Maybe I'm doing a bad shapely estimation, re the paper. Far Labs could've made the paper exist if Lighthaven didn't exist (and they also contributed a lot, to be clear). But that's still too high minded, to make up counterfactual hypothetical worlds. In this timeline Lighthaven was crucial in these specific ways. I can say more about what I owe to LessWrong (seriously. Just at the end of 1.0 era I was a starving artist, the sequences and the at-that-time MIRI research guide are the only thing that could've motivated me to hit khanacademy and sign up for math courses and develop a CS career. And the 2.0 reinvigoration added momentum!)
2to be clear: this strategy is also problematic if you hope to have dependents in the future (i.e. are dating with family-starting intentions). its a selection effect on the partners you can realistically have relationships with.
source: pain and suffering.
21I spent a long time spinning my wheels calculating the "scenarios i'd most like to mitigate" and the "1-3 potentially most effective interventions" before noticing that not specializing was slowly killing me. Agree that this is the hard part, but a current guess of mine is that at least some people should do the 80/20 by identifying a top 5 then throwing dice.
I have to make a post about specialization, the value it adds to your life independent of the choice of what to specialize in, etc.
Agree that PBT is the control group! Agree that PBT is the 80/20 for most people most of the time.
1This worked for me!
Great, thanks. Yeah I dont have a preexisting sequence yet. So this doesnt work for me
(Finally read If Anyone Builds It): the fable about defensive acceleration in biotech spooked me pretty good, insofar as I think synthesizing an SL5 grade cloud stack is a good idea. This idea of "we think we're doing monotonic defensive acceleration, and in a very real sense we actually are, but nevertheless the gameboard inexorably marches toward Everyone Dies routing through that very defensive acceleration" could soooooo easily be applied to cybersecurity.