But actually, mapping the debate around AI x-risk seems really worthwhile, as does the idea of building software tools to make arguments easier to organize and understand. Anyone know of good projects doing that?
I also like Talk to the City, “an interactive LLM tool to improve collective decision-making by finding the key viewpoints and cruxes in any discourse”.
Oh, actually I spoke too soon about “Talk to the City.” As a research project, it is cool, but I really don’t like the obfuscation that occurs when talking to an LLM about the content it was trained on. I don’t know how TTTC works under the hood, but I was hoping for something more like de-duplication of posts, automatically fitting them into argument graphs. Then users could navigate to relevant points in the graph based on a text description of their current point of view, but importantly they would be interfacing with the actual human generated text, with links back to it’s source, and would be able to browse the entire graph. People could then locate (visually?) important crux’s and new crux’s wouldn’t require a writeup to disseminate, but would already be embedded in the relevant part of the argument. ( I might try to develop something like this someday if I can’t find anyone else doing it. )
The risk interview perspectives is much closer to what I was thinking, and I’d like to study it in more detail, but seems more like a traditional analysis / infographic than what I am wishing would exist.
The best is probably AI risk interview perspectives, an “interactive walkthrough exploring potential risks from advanced AI” created from interviews with 97 AI researchers. The project lead Vael Gates posted about this here awhile back.
I also like Talk to the City, “an interactive LLM tool to improve collective decision-making by finding the key viewpoints and cruxes in any discourse”.
Oh, actually I spoke too soon about “Talk to the City.” As a research project, it is cool, but I really don’t like the obfuscation that occurs when talking to an LLM about the content it was trained on. I don’t know how TTTC works under the hood, but I was hoping for something more like de-duplication of posts, automatically fitting them into argument graphs. Then users could navigate to relevant points in the graph based on a text description of their current point of view, but importantly they would be interfacing with the actual human generated text, with links back to it’s source, and would be able to browse the entire graph. People could then locate (visually?) important crux’s and new crux’s wouldn’t require a writeup to disseminate, but would already be embedded in the relevant part of the argument.
( I might try to develop something like this someday if I can’t find anyone else doing it. )
The risk interview perspectives is much closer to what I was thinking, and I’d like to study it in more detail, but seems more like a traditional analysis / infographic than what I am wishing would exist.
Yesssss! These look cool : ) Thank you.