especially skilled in maths, probably at the IMO medal-winning level
(Should distinguish raw intelligence, contest training and research math training. Raw intelligence is crucial for good performance in both contests and math research, but getting good at math takes many years of training that IMO winners won’t automatically have.)
Strongly agree. I would also make explicit what is implied above, namely that IMO (etc.) winners will in fact tend to have years of training of a different sort: solving (artificially-devised) contest problems, which may not be as relevant of a skill for SI’s purposes.
It seems to me that what SI really wants/needs is a mathematically-sophisticated version of Yudkowsky. Unfortunately, I’m not sure where one goes to find such people. IMO may not be a bad place to start, but one is probably going to have to look elsewhere as well.
(Should distinguish raw intelligence, contest training and research math training. Raw intelligence is crucial for good performance in both contests and math research, but getting good at math takes many years of training that IMO winners won’t automatically have.)
Strongly agree. I would also make explicit what is implied above, namely that IMO (etc.) winners will in fact tend to have years of training of a different sort: solving (artificially-devised) contest problems, which may not be as relevant of a skill for SI’s purposes.
It seems to me that what SI really wants/needs is a mathematically-sophisticated version of Yudkowsky. Unfortunately, I’m not sure where one goes to find such people. IMO may not be a bad place to start, but one is probably going to have to look elsewhere as well.