Advertising this this late is probably suboptimal: I’d expect most people to already have made their summer plans, and arranging to have three weeks off from work/studies/whatever is something that most folks need a lot of advance notice for.
Indeed. The program is a last-minute idea, and we considered waiting until next year for this reason; but it seemed better to get started. And, contrary to my initial fears, interest and applications seem good, so far.
The overton window has shifted on AI risk; this program would not have been planable a year ago. I feel a bad for the folks who are finding out about this late, and who would’ve wanted to come and now have to decide between breaking existing plans and waiting for a future year (if we run these future years); but it still seems good we’re doing it now.
I think it’s partly not doing enough far-advance planning, but also partly just a greater-than-usual willingness to Try Things that seem like good ideas even if the timeline is a bit rushed. That’s how the original minicamp happened, which ended up going so well that it inspired us to develop and launch CFAR.
I know, but something seems not-quite-right about this. If you had all the same events at the same times, but thought of them earlier and so had longer to plan them, you’d be strictly better off. I can think of two constraints that can make rushed timelines like this make sense:
you’re ideas-bound, not resources-bound: there’s little you can do to have ideas any earlier than you already do.
the ideas only make sense to implement in the light of information you didn’t have earlier, so you couldn’t have started acting on them before.
If you’re happy that you’re already pushing these constraints as far as it makes sense to, then I’ll stop moaning :)
Why does this program rely on AI risk being within the Overton window? I would guess that the majority of people interested in this were already interested in AI risk before it went mainstream.
First, because the high-math community seems to contain many who are interested now (and have applied), who it would’ve been harder to interest before. Second, because running such a program for MIRI is more compatible with CFAR’s branding, and CFAR’s ability to appeal to a wide audience, now than before.
And, contrary to my initial fears, interest and applications seem good, so far.
The number of applications seem good, or the quality seems good? I can’t help but suspect that better candidates are more likely to have alternate plans.
Advertising this this late is probably suboptimal: I’d expect most people to already have made their summer plans, and arranging to have three weeks off from work/studies/whatever is something that most folks need a lot of advance notice for.
Indeed. The program is a last-minute idea, and we considered waiting until next year for this reason; but it seemed better to get started. And, contrary to my initial fears, interest and applications seem good, so far.
The overton window has shifted on AI risk; this program would not have been planable a year ago. I feel a bad for the folks who are finding out about this late, and who would’ve wanted to come and now have to decide between breaking existing plans and waiting for a future year (if we run these future years); but it still seems good we’re doing it now.
This isn’t a first for CFAR or MIRI—I hope you guys are putting lots of thought into how to have your last-minute ideas earlier :-)
I think it’s partly not doing enough far-advance planning, but also partly just a greater-than-usual willingness to Try Things that seem like good ideas even if the timeline is a bit rushed. That’s how the original minicamp happened, which ended up going so well that it inspired us to develop and launch CFAR.
I know, but something seems not-quite-right about this. If you had all the same events at the same times, but thought of them earlier and so had longer to plan them, you’d be strictly better off. I can think of two constraints that can make rushed timelines like this make sense:
you’re ideas-bound, not resources-bound: there’s little you can do to have ideas any earlier than you already do.
the ideas only make sense to implement in the light of information you didn’t have earlier, so you couldn’t have started acting on them before.
If you’re happy that you’re already pushing these constraints as far as it makes sense to, then I’ll stop moaning :)
Why does this program rely on AI risk being within the Overton window? I would guess that the majority of people interested in this were already interested in AI risk before it went mainstream.
First, because the high-math community seems to contain many who are interested now (and have applied), who it would’ve been harder to interest before. Second, because running such a program for MIRI is more compatible with CFAR’s branding, and CFAR’s ability to appeal to a wide audience, now than before.
The number of applications seem good, or the quality seems good? I can’t help but suspect that better candidates are more likely to have alternate plans.
Both, actually.