It seems like the current meta is to write a big essay outlining your opinions about AI (see, e.g., Gladstone Report, Situational Awareness, various essays recently by Sam Altman and Dario Amodei, even the A Narrow Path report I co-authored).
Why do we think this is the case? I can imagine at least 3 hypotheses: 1. Just path-dependence; someone did it, it went well, others imitated
2. Essays are High Status Serious Writing, and people want to obtain that trophy for their ideas
3. This is a return to the true original meaning of an essay, under Montaigne, that it’s an attempt to write thinking down when it’s still inchoate, in an effort to make it more comprehensible not only to others but also to oneself. And AGI/ASI is deeply uncertain, so the essay format is particularly suited for this.
Well, what’s the alternative? If you think there is something weird enough and suboptimal about essay formats that you are reaching for ‘random chance’ or ‘monkey see monkey do’ level explanations, that implies you think there is some much superior format they ought to be using instead. But I can’t see what. I think it might be helpful to try to make the case for doing these things via some of the alternatives:
a peer-reviewed Nature paper which would be published 2 years from now, maybe, behind a paywall
a published book, published 3 years from starting the first draft now, which some people might get around to reading a year or two after that, and dropping halfway through (assuming you finish and didn’t burn out writing it)
a 1 minute Tiktok video by an AI person with non-supermodel looks
a 5-minute heavily-excerpted interview on CNN
a 750-word WSJ or NYT op-ed
a 10-page Arxiv paper in the standard LaTeX template
a Twitter thread of 500 tweets (which can only be read by logged-in users)
a Medium post (which can’t be read because it is written in a light gray font illegible to anyone over the age of 20. Also, it’s paywalled 90% of the time.)
a 6 hour Lex Fridman podcast interview, about 4 hours in after Lex has finished his obligatory throatclearing questions (like asking you if aliens exist or the universe is made out of love)
interpretive dance in front of the Lincoln Memorial livestreamed on Twitch
I think those are the meta because they have just enough space to not only give opinions but to mention reasons for those opinions and expertise/background to support the many unstated judgment calls.
Note that the essays by Altman and Amodei are popular because their positions are central beyond the others because they have not only demonstrable backgrounds in AI but lots of name recognition (we’re mostly assuming Altman has bothered learning a lot about how Transformers work even if we don’t like him). And that the Gladstone report got itself commissioned by at least a little piece of the government.
A Narrow Path just demonstrates in the text that you and your co-authors have thought deeply about the topic. Shorter essays leave more guesswork on the authors’ expertise and depth of consideration.
It seems like the current meta is to write a big essay outlining your opinions about AI (see, e.g., Gladstone Report, Situational Awareness, various essays recently by Sam Altman and Dario Amodei, even the A Narrow Path report I co-authored).
Why do we think this is the case?
I can imagine at least 3 hypotheses:
1. Just path-dependence; someone did it, it went well, others imitated
2. Essays are High Status Serious Writing, and people want to obtain that trophy for their ideas
3. This is a return to the true original meaning of an essay, under Montaigne, that it’s an attempt to write thinking down when it’s still inchoate, in an effort to make it more comprehensible not only to others but also to oneself. And AGI/ASI is deeply uncertain, so the essay format is particularly suited for this.
What do you think?
Well, what’s the alternative? If you think there is something weird enough and suboptimal about essay formats that you are reaching for ‘random chance’ or ‘monkey see monkey do’ level explanations, that implies you think there is some much superior format they ought to be using instead. But I can’t see what. I think it might be helpful to try to make the case for doing these things via some of the alternatives:
a peer-reviewed Nature paper which would be published 2 years from now, maybe, behind a paywall
a published book, published 3 years from starting the first draft now, which some people might get around to reading a year or two after that, and dropping halfway through (assuming you finish and didn’t burn out writing it)
a 1 minute Tiktok video by an AI person with non-supermodel looks
a 5-minute heavily-excerpted interview on CNN
a 750-word WSJ or NYT op-ed
a 10-page Arxiv paper in the standard LaTeX template
a Twitter thread of 500 tweets (which can only be read by logged-in users)
a Medium post (which can’t be read because it is written in a light gray font illegible to anyone over the age of 20. Also, it’s paywalled 90% of the time.)
a 6 hour Lex Fridman podcast interview, about 4 hours in after Lex has finished his obligatory throatclearing questions (like asking you if aliens exist or the universe is made out of love)
interpretive dance in front of the Lincoln Memorial livestreamed on Twitch
...
(I’d also add in Karnofsky’s blog post series.)
I think those are the meta because they have just enough space to not only give opinions but to mention reasons for those opinions and expertise/background to support the many unstated judgment calls.
Note that the essays by Altman and Amodei are popular because their positions are central beyond the others because they have not only demonstrable backgrounds in AI but lots of name recognition (we’re mostly assuming Altman has bothered learning a lot about how Transformers work even if we don’t like him). And that the Gladstone report got itself commissioned by at least a little piece of the government.
A Narrow Path just demonstrates in the text that you and your co-authors have thought deeply about the topic. Shorter essays leave more guesswork on the authors’ expertise and depth of consideration.