Feedback: when I read this post title and the title of “You are probably not a good alignment researcher, and other blatant lies”, I felt a little ashamed. I dropped out of high school before learning how to use the quadratic formula, Fizzbuzz is the outer limit of my programming ability, and I have a panic reaction to math and CS which has made improving these skills in adulthood intractable. I think I am not qualified to do technical alignment research.
Reading through both posts, I acknowledge that they’re hedged enough to account for the fact that some people aren’t good alignment researchers. But I think small changes to the titles and internal post phrasing would leave me feeling less desire to step in with a “well, actually”. I don’t know the costs of these changes very well—sincerely, if LessWrong is a forum primarily for people who have at least a BA in CS or equivalent knowledge, then my request is overstepping. But if the intended audience is more general, then it would be an improvement to make the intended scope of “people who think they aren’t qualified to do alignment research, who may actually be so qualified” more clear.
that’s very reasonable feedback, thanks for posting it. i wrote the post with more of a “have you considered that you’re wrong?” mindset, to which “yes i have considered it and i’m not” is a perfectly reasonable response, but maybe i failed to convey that vibe.
that said, given the hedging and my assumptions about the distribution of LW readers, i’m not sure i wanna change much about the post as it is.
More like “I’m not qualified yet”. There’s more maths, CS and ML I need to learn first. I do encounter stumbling blocks due to insufficient technical maturity when working on some alignment posts.
sorry, i don’t know, because i haven’t done such skilling up myself apart from learning a few things here and there as needed.
Feedback: when I read this post title and the title of “You are probably not a good alignment researcher, and other blatant lies”, I felt a little ashamed. I dropped out of high school before learning how to use the quadratic formula, Fizzbuzz is the outer limit of my programming ability, and I have a panic reaction to math and CS which has made improving these skills in adulthood intractable. I think I am not qualified to do technical alignment research.
Reading through both posts, I acknowledge that they’re hedged enough to account for the fact that some people aren’t good alignment researchers. But I think small changes to the titles and internal post phrasing would leave me feeling less desire to step in with a “well, actually”. I don’t know the costs of these changes very well—sincerely, if LessWrong is a forum primarily for people who have at least a BA in CS or equivalent knowledge, then my request is overstepping. But if the intended audience is more general, then it would be an improvement to make the intended scope of “people who think they aren’t qualified to do alignment research, who may actually be so qualified” more clear.
that’s very reasonable feedback, thanks for posting it. i wrote the post with more of a “have you considered that you’re wrong?” mindset, to which “yes i have considered it and i’m not” is a perfectly reasonable response, but maybe i failed to convey that vibe.
that said, given the hedging and my assumptions about the distribution of LW readers, i’m not sure i wanna change much about the post as it is.
This link is broken
here’s the correct link https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/T4KZ62LJsxDkMf4nF/a-casual-intro-to-ai-doom-and-alignment-1
thanks! fixed.
More like “I’m not qualified yet”. There’s more maths, CS and ML I need to learn first. I do encounter stumbling blocks due to insufficient technical maturity when working on some alignment posts.