I think it is great idea, but may be we need “Existential risk journal” which will cover not only AI safety but other things?
The main obstacle I see is that to have a high quality journal, it should be started by well established institution (MIRI or FHI), and also there should be one highly experienced scientific editor who are also deep in the topic and on full time occupation, as well as some funds.
In generally, high quality peer-review improves quality of papers, as reviewers are obliged to find ALL errors. Preprints are good in promoting articles which are already of high quality, but less quality inputs will be mostly ignored, so their authors will get more vague feedback which will slow the process of their improvement.
Ideal system should combine obligatory peer review and commenting from everybody interested, but solving academic publishing problem is another very large task.
I think it is great idea, but may be we need “Existential risk journal” which will cover not only AI safety but other things?
The main obstacle I see is that to have a high quality journal, it should be started by well established institution (MIRI or FHI), and also there should be one highly experienced scientific editor who are also deep in the topic and on full time occupation, as well as some funds.
In generally, high quality peer-review improves quality of papers, as reviewers are obliged to find ALL errors. Preprints are good in promoting articles which are already of high quality, but less quality inputs will be mostly ignored, so their authors will get more vague feedback which will slow the process of their improvement.
Ideal system should combine obligatory peer review and commenting from everybody interested, but solving academic publishing problem is another very large task.
Interesting, I hadn’t considered covering all of x-risk but it does seem an underserved area.