My model of Eliezer winces when a proposal for AGI design is published rather than kept secret. Part of me does too.
One upshot though is it gives AI safety researchers and proponents a more tangible case to examine. Architecture-specific risks can be identified, and central concerns like
inner alignment can be evaluated against the proposed architecture and (assuming they still apply) be made more concrete and convincing.
I’m still reading the LeCun paper (currently on page 9). One thing it’s reminding me of so far is Steve Byrnes’ writing on brain-like AGI (and related safety considerations): https://www.lesswrong.com/s/HzcM2dkCq7fwXBej8
My model of Eliezer winces when a proposal for AGI design is published rather than kept secret. Part of me does too.
One upshot though is it gives AI safety researchers and proponents a more tangible case to examine. Architecture-specific risks can be identified, and central concerns like inner alignment can be evaluated against the proposed architecture and (assuming they still apply) be made more concrete and convincing.
I’m still reading the LeCun paper (currently on page 9). One thing it’s reminding me of so far is Steve Byrnes’ writing on brain-like AGI (and related safety considerations): https://www.lesswrong.com/s/HzcM2dkCq7fwXBej8