I am not sure which way you intended that sentence. Did you mean:
A. We want to shut down all AGI research everywhere by everyone, or
B. We want to shut down AGI research and we also want to shut down governments and militaries and spies
I assume you meant the first thing, but want to be sure!
We support A. Eliezer has been very clear about that in his tweets. In broader MIRI communications, it depends on how many words we have to express our ideas, but when we have room we spell out that idea.
I agree that current / proposed regulation is mostly not aimed at A.
Gretta Duleba
Karma: 986
As I mentioned in the post we are looking to hire or partner with a new spokesperson if we can find someone suitable. We don’t think it will be easy to find someone great; it’s a pretty hard job.
Seems right, thanks.
Gosh, I haven’t really conducted a survey here or thought deeply about it, so this answer will be very off the cuff and not very 2024. Some of the examples that come to mind are the major media empires of, e.g. Brene Brown or Gretchen Rubin.
Yes.
Rob Bensinger has tweeted about it some.
Overall we continue to be pretty weak in on the “wave” side, having people comment publicly on current events / take part in discourse, and the people we hired recently are less interested in that and more interested in producing the durable content. We’ll need to work on it.
Oh, yeah, to be clear I completely made up the “rock / wave” metaphor. But the general model itself is pretty common I think; I’m not claiming to be inventing totally new ways of spreading a message, quite the opposite.
Yup to all of that. :)
Your curiosity and questions are valid but I’d prefer not to give you more than I already have, sorry.
What are the artifacts you’re most excited about, and what’s your rough prediction about when they will be ready?
Due to bugs in human psychology, we are more likely to succeed in our big projects if we don’t yet state publicly what we’re going to do by when. Sorry. I did provide some hints in the main post (website, book, online reference).
how do you plan to assess the success/failure of your projects? Are there any concrete metrics you’re hoping to achieve? What does a “really good outcome” for MIRI’s comms team look like by the end of the year,
The only concrete metric that really matters is “do we survive” but you are probably interested some intermediate performance indicators. :-P
The main things I am looking for within 2024 are not as SMART-goal shaped as you are probably asking for. What I’d like to see is that that we’ve developed enough trust in our most recent new hires that they are freely able to write on behalf of MIRI without getting important things wrong, such that we’re no longer bottlenecked on a few key people within MIRI; that we’re producing high-quality content at a much faster clip; that we have the capacity to handle many more of the press inquiries we receive rather than turning most of them down; that we’re better positioned to participate in the ‘wave’ shaped current event conversations.
I’d like to see strong and growing engagement with the new website.
And probably most importantly, when others in our network engage in policy conversations, I’d like to hear reports back that our materials were useful.
what does a “we have failed and need to substantially rethink our approach, speed, or personnel” outcome look like?
Failure looks like: still bottlenecked on specific people, still drowning in high-quality press requests that we can’t fulfill even though we’d like to, haven’t produced anything, book project stuck in a quagmire, new website somehow worse than the old one / gets no traffic, etc.
In this reply I am speaking just about the comms team and not about other parts of MIRI or other organizations.
We want to produce materials that are suitable and persuasive for the audiences I named. (And by persuasive, I don’t mean anything manipulative or dirty; I just mean using valid arguments that address the points that are most interesting / concerning to our audience in a compelling fashion.)
So there are two parts here: creating high quality materials, and delivering them to that audience.
First, creating high quality materials. Some of this is down to just doing a good job in general: making the right arguments in the right order using good writing and pedagogical technique; none of this is very audience specific. There is also an audience-specific component, and to do well on that, we do need to understand our audience better. We are working to recruit beta readers from appropriate audience pools.
Second, delivering them to those audiences. There are several approaches here, most of which will not be executed by the comms team directly, we hand off to others. Within comms, we do want to see good reach and engagement with intelligent general audiences.
We think that most people who see political speech know it to be political speech and automatically discount it. We hope that speaking in a different way will cut through these filters.
At the start of 2024, the comms team was only me and Rob. We hired Harlan in Q1 and Joe and Mitch are only full time as of this week. Hiring was extremely labor-intensive and time consuming. As such, we haven’t kicked into gear yet.
The main publicly-visible artifact we’ve produced so far is the MIRI newsletter; that comes out monthly.
Most of the rest of the object-level work is not public yet; the artifacts we’re producing are very big and we want to get them right.
All of your questions fall under Lisa’s team and I will defer to her.
A reasonable point, thank you. We said it pretty clearly in the MIRI strategy post in January, and I linked to that post here, but perhaps I should have reiterated it.
For clarity: we mostly just expect to die. But while we can see viable paths forward at all, we’ll keep trying not to.
That phrase sounds like the Terminator movies to me; it sounds like plucky humans could still band together to overthrow their robot overlords. I want to convey a total loss of control.
In documents where we have more room to unpack concepts I can imagine getting into some of the more exotic scenarios like aliens buying brain scans, but mostly I don’t expect our audiences to find that scenario reassuring in any way, and going into any detail about it doesn’t feel like a useful way to spend weirdness points.Some of the other things you suggest, like future systems keeping humans physically alive, do not seem plausible to me. Whatever they’re trying to do, there’s almost certainly a better way to do it than by keeping Matrix-like human body farms running.
I don’t speak for Nate or Eliezer in this reply; where I speak about Eliezer I am of course describing my model of him, which may be flawed.
Three somewhat disjoint answers:
From my perspective, your point about algorithmic improvement only underlines the importance of having powerful people actually get what the problem is and have accurate working models. If this becomes true, then the specific policy measures have some chance of adapting to current conditions, or of being written in an adaptive manner in the first place.
Eliezer said a few years ago that “I consider the present gameboard to look incredibly grim” and while he has more hope now than he had then about potential political solutions, it is not the case (as I understand it) that he now feels hopeful that these solutions will work. Our policy proposals are an incredible longshot.
One thing we can hope for, if we get a little more time rather than a lot more time, is that we might get various forms of human cognitive enhancement working, and these smarter humans can make more rapid progress on AI alignment.
Indeed! However, I’d been having stress dreams for months about getting drowned in the churning tidal wave of the constant news cycle, and I needed something that fit thematically with ‘wave.’ :-)
Thanks for the ideas!