MIRI is focusing on technical research into Friendly AI, and their recent mid-2014 strategic plan explicitly announced that they are leaving the public outreach and strategic research to FHI, CSER and FLI. Compared to FHI and CSER, we are less focused on research and more on outreach, which we are well-placed to do given our strong volunteer base and academic connections. Our location allows us to directly engage Harvard and MIT researchers in our brainstorming and decision-making.
Yeah, just in case this isn’t obvious to everyone: I’m excited about FLI and very grateful to Max, Meia, Jaan, Vika, Anthony, and everyone else for all the hard work they’re doing over there on the East Coast.
I remember when Max & Meia visited MIRI during Max’s Our Mathematical Universe book tour and Max said “I’m thinking of focusing more of my time on x-risk stuff. How can I help?”
I can’t remember what I asked for, but it was somewhat more modest than “Please assemble a stellar advisory board and launch a new x-risk organization at MIT.” I didn’t know I could ask for that! :)
OK, so it seems like FLI promotes the conclusions of other x-risk organizations, but doesn’t do any actual research itself.
Do you think it’s not worth questioning the conclusions that other organizations have come to? Seems to me that if there are four xrisk organizations (each with reasonably strong connections to each other) there should be some debate between them.
I don’t know, but if you ask intelligent people what they think about x-risk related to AI it’s unlikely they’ll come to the exact same conclusions that MIRI etc have.
If you present the ideas of MIRI to intelligent people, some of them will be excited and want to help with donations or volunteering. Others will dismiss you and think you are wrong/crazy.
So to expand on my question… if you find intelligent people who disagree with MIRI on significant things, will you work with them?
MIRI is focusing on technical research into Friendly AI, and their recent mid-2014 strategic plan explicitly announced that they are leaving the public outreach and strategic research to FHI, CSER and FLI. Compared to FHI and CSER, we are less focused on research and more on outreach, which we are well-placed to do given our strong volunteer base and academic connections. Our location allows us to directly engage Harvard and MIT researchers in our brainstorming and decision-making.
Yeah, just in case this isn’t obvious to everyone: I’m excited about FLI and very grateful to Max, Meia, Jaan, Vika, Anthony, and everyone else for all the hard work they’re doing over there on the East Coast.
I remember when Max & Meia visited MIRI during Max’s Our Mathematical Universe book tour and Max said “I’m thinking of focusing more of my time on x-risk stuff. How can I help?”
I can’t remember what I asked for, but it was somewhat more modest than “Please assemble a stellar advisory board and launch a new x-risk organization at MIT.” I didn’t know I could ask for that! :)
OK, so it seems like FLI promotes the conclusions of other x-risk organizations, but doesn’t do any actual research itself.
Do you think it’s not worth questioning the conclusions that other organizations have come to? Seems to me that if there are four xrisk organizations (each with reasonably strong connections to each other) there should be some debate between them.
What kind of questions would you expect the organizations to disagree about?
I don’t know, but if you ask intelligent people what they think about x-risk related to AI it’s unlikely they’ll come to the exact same conclusions that MIRI etc have.
If you present the ideas of MIRI to intelligent people, some of them will be excited and want to help with donations or volunteering. Others will dismiss you and think you are wrong/crazy.
So to expand on my question… if you find intelligent people who disagree with MIRI on significant things, will you work with them?