(Writing this because it might help me with my actual job one day)
I don’t belong to the target audience of such posts. But that’s why I qualify as a newcomer, whee) and if I tried to make the abstract more academia-styled, I’d get something like this:
John Wentworth’s Natural Abstraction agenda aims to understand and recover “natural” abstractions in realistic environments. We introduce the conceptual framework around it and review its key claims, relationship to prior work in a number of fields, and results to date. Of particular interest are the Natural Abstraction Hypothesis and Wensworth’s specific formulation of natural abstractions (here called “redundant information abstractions”).
We re-define and draw mathematical proofs for some of the amassed key results. We then discuss the agenda to date including the gaps in theoretical framework and challenge its methodology and relevance to alignment research.
What is an agenda? Is it a technical or a common-speech word? (and what are realistic environments, for that matter)
“Our hope is to make it easier for newcomers to get up to speed on natural abstractions, as well as to spur a discussion about future research priorities.”—unnecessary. It’s what people more-or-less usually do anyway.
I’d like to change the “specific formulation of natural abstractions” to something more precise, but I don’t now the subject.
“and explain how those results fit into the agenda” = discuss, but people don’t say it because it’s just expected of them because math has to be put in context.
(just a personal wish) the word “alignment” should preferably be spelled “Alignment” if it’s a term or followed by “research”.
(Writing this because it might help me with my actual job one day)
I don’t belong to the target audience of such posts. But that’s why I qualify as a newcomer, whee) and if I tried to make the abstract more academia-styled, I’d get something like this:
John Wentworth’s Natural Abstraction agenda aims to understand and recover “natural” abstractions in realistic environments. We introduce the conceptual framework around it and review its key claims, relationship to prior work in a number of fields, and results to date. Of particular interest are the Natural Abstraction Hypothesis and Wensworth’s specific formulation of natural abstractions (here called “redundant information abstractions”). We re-define and draw mathematical proofs for some of the amassed key results. We then discuss the agenda to date including the gaps in theoretical framework and challenge its methodology and relevance to alignment research.
What is an agenda? Is it a technical or a common-speech word? (and what are realistic environments, for that matter)
“Our hope is to make it easier for newcomers to get up to speed on natural abstractions, as well as to spur a discussion about future research priorities.”—unnecessary. It’s what people more-or-less usually do anyway.
I’d like to change the “specific formulation of natural abstractions” to something more precise, but I don’t now the subject.
“and explain how those results fit into the agenda” = discuss, but people don’t say it because it’s just expected of them because math has to be put in context.
(just a personal wish) the word “alignment” should preferably be spelled “Alignment” if it’s a term or followed by “research”.