Well, as long as it’s well curated and maintained, I suppose it could work… But why not work on making the less wrong wiki better? That comes attached to the website already.
Anyway, I’m not sure a new wiki has much of an advantage over “list of recent AI risk papers + links to youtube videos + less wrong wiki updated a bit more” for researchers—at least, not enough advantage to justify the costs. A few well-maintained pages (“AI risks”, “friendly AI”, “CEV”, “counterarguments”, “various models”), no more than a dozen at most, that summarise the core arguments with links to the more advanced stuff, should be enough for what we’d want, I feel.
Not 100%, obviously. But most of the work developing the wiki would be paid work, if that’s what you mean by “activity.”
Well, as long as it’s well curated and maintained, I suppose it could work… But why not work on making the less wrong wiki better? That comes attached to the website already.
Anyway, I’m not sure a new wiki has much of an advantage over “list of recent AI risk papers + links to youtube videos + less wrong wiki updated a bit more” for researchers—at least, not enough advantage to justify the costs. A few well-maintained pages (“AI risks”, “friendly AI”, “CEV”, “counterarguments”, “various models”), no more than a dozen at most, that summarise the core arguments with links to the more advanced stuff, should be enough for what we’d want, I feel.
You might be right. I do have 3 people right now improving the LW wiki and adding all the pages listed in the OP that aren’t already in the LW wiki.