I think « random physicist » is not super fair, it looks like from his stand point he indeed met physicist willing to do « alignment » research, and had backgrounds in research and developping theory
We didn’t find Phd student to work on alignment but also we didn’t try (at least not cesia / effisciences)
Its true that most of the people we find that wanted to work on the problem were the motivated ones, but from the point of view of the alignment problem still recruiting them could be a mistake (saturating the field etc)
What do you think of my point about Scott Aaronson? Also, since you agree with points 2 and 3, it seems that you also think that the most useful work from last year didn’t require advanced physics, so isn’t this a contradiction with you disagreing with point 1?
I agree with claim 2-3 but not with claim 1
I think « random physicist » is not super fair, it looks like from his stand point he indeed met physicist willing to do « alignment » research, and had backgrounds in research and developping theory
We didn’t find Phd student to work on alignment but also we didn’t try (at least not cesia / effisciences)
Its true that most of the people we find that wanted to work on the problem were the motivated ones, but from the point of view of the alignment problem still recruiting them could be a mistake (saturating the field etc)
What do you think of my point about Scott Aaronson? Also, since you agree with points 2 and 3, it seems that you also think that the most useful work from last year didn’t require advanced physics, so isn’t this a contradiction with you disagreing with point 1?