Though some journalists might still be hung up on MIRI’s lack of social status markers, I don’t think that many others, including cutting-edge AI researchers, are.
Sorry for the quick nitpick- I don’t know if social status is the right way to look at this. Journalists are more pragmatic, like bayesians, and their mental model of the world does not include highly competent orgs like MIRI, instead focusing on their own inability to evaluate research; if an org has a risk of being a crackpot org (or ending up seen as a crackpot org by readers or the company’s editors), individual journalists face incentives to avoid being called out for accidentally citing a crackpot org.
Not to depict them as more responsible than they actually are. A surprisingly large proportion are nihilistic and obsessed with power games.
Yes, I agree with your point about most journalists. Still, I think well enough of the professors and AI developers that I mentioned to imagine that they would have a more positive attitude.
Sorry for the quick nitpick- I don’t know if social status is the right way to look at this. Journalists are more pragmatic, like bayesians, and their mental model of the world does not include highly competent orgs like MIRI, instead focusing on their own inability to evaluate research; if an org has a risk of being a crackpot org (or ending up seen as a crackpot org by readers or the company’s editors), individual journalists face incentives to avoid being called out for accidentally citing a crackpot org.
Not to depict them as more responsible than they actually are. A surprisingly large proportion are nihilistic and obsessed with power games.
Yes, I agree with your point about most journalists. Still, I think well enough of the professors and AI developers that I mentioned to imagine that they would have a more positive attitude.