Why? Because at any given time, it would take ~18 months to take whatever our current best idea is, implement it, do some basic tests, and deploy it.
I don’t understand how the existence of this gap makes you think that timelines don’t matter.
If your timelines are short, shouldn’t an active priority be to eg. reduce that gap?
Funding a group of engineers to actively take our best current alignment idea and integrate it into prod models might be a waste of time on long timelines, but very important on short timelines.
It’s not that timelines don’t matter at all, it’s that they only matter at very short timescales, i.e. nontrivial probability of takeoff on the order of 18 months. The difference between 10 years and 100 years does not particularly matter. (And “difference between 10 years and 100 years” is much closer to what most timeline estimates look at; most people estimating timelines are very confident that takeoff won’t happen in the next 18 months.)
In that case, I would care about timelines insofar as there was significant uncertainty about the probability of takeoff on the order of 5 years. So I’d probably care a little about the difference between 10 years and 100 years, but still mostly not care about the difference between 30 years and 100 years.
It seems like your model is that we should be working in one of two modes:
Developing better alignment ideas
Implementing our current best alignment idea
However, in my model, there are a lot of alignment ideas which are only worth developing given certain timelines. [edit: Therefore, “you should be developing better alignment ideas anyway” is a very vague and questionably actionable strategy.]
I don’t understand how the existence of this gap makes you think that timelines don’t matter.
If your timelines are short, shouldn’t an active priority be to eg. reduce that gap?
Funding a group of engineers to actively take our best current alignment idea and integrate it into prod models might be a waste of time on long timelines, but very important on short timelines.
It’s not that timelines don’t matter at all, it’s that they only matter at very short timescales, i.e. nontrivial probability of takeoff on the order of 18 months. The difference between 10 years and 100 years does not particularly matter. (And “difference between 10 years and 100 years” is much closer to what most timeline estimates look at; most people estimating timelines are very confident that takeoff won’t happen in the next 18 months.)
To identify the crux here, would you care about timelines if it took five years to bring our best alignment idea to production?
In that case, I would care about timelines insofar as there was significant uncertainty about the probability of takeoff on the order of 5 years. So I’d probably care a little about the difference between 10 years and 100 years, but still mostly not care about the difference between 30 years and 100 years.
It seems like your model is that we should be working in one of two modes:
Developing better alignment ideas
Implementing our current best alignment idea
However, in my model, there are a lot of alignment ideas which are only worth developing given certain timelines. [edit: Therefore, “you should be developing better alignment ideas anyway” is a very vague and questionably actionable strategy.]
Do you believe this is the crux?
(Conversation continued in a different thread.)