All of Akash's Comments + Replies

Thank you for writing this post, Adam! Looking forward to seeing what you and your epistemology team produce in the months ahead.

SERI MATS is doing a great job of scaling conceptual alignment research, and seem open to integrate some of the ideas behind Refine

I'm a big fan of SERI MATS. But my impression was that SERI MATS had a rather different pedagogy/structure (compared to Refine). In particular: 

  1. SERI MATS has an "apprenticeship model" (every mentee is matched with one mentor), whereas Refine mentees didn't have mentors.
  2. Refine was optimizing for p
... (read more)
5Adam Shimi12d
Thanks for the kind words! I have shared some of my models related to epistemology and key questions to MATS organizers, and I think they're supposed to be integrated in one of the future programs. Mostly things regarding realizing the importance of productive mistakes [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ADMWDDKGgivgghxWf/productive-mistakes-not-perfect-answers] in science (which naturally pushes back a bit from the mentoring aspect of MATS) and understanding how less "clean" most scientific progress actually look like historically (with a basic reading list from the history of science). From the impression I have, they are also now trying to give participants some broader perspective about the field, in addition to the specific frame of the mentor, and a bunch of the lessons from Refine about how to build a good model of the alignment problem apply. On a more general level, I expect that I had enough discussions with them that they would naturally ask me for feedback if they thought of something that seemed Refine shaped or similar. Hum, intuitively the main value from Refine that I don't expect to be covered by future MATS would come from reaching out to very different profiles. There's a non-negligeable chance that PIBBSS manages to make that work though, so not clear that it's a problem. Note that this is also part of why Refine feels less useful: when I conceived of it, most of these programs either didn't exist or were not well-established. Part of the frustration came from having nothing IRL for non-american to join, and just no program spending a significant amount of time on conceptual alignment, which both MATS and PIBBSS (in addition to other programs like ARENA) are now fixing. Which I think is great!

Hastily written; may edit later

Thanks for mentioning this, Jan! We'd be happy to hear suggestions for additional judges. Feel free to email us at akash@alignmentawards.com and olivia@alignmentawards.com.  

Some additional thoughts:

  1. We chose judges primarily based on their expertise and (our perception of) their ability to evaluate submissions about goal misgeneralization and corrigibility. Lauro, Richard, Nate, and John ade some of few researchers who have thought substantially about these problems. In particular, Lauro first-authored the firs
... (read more)
4JanBrauner13d
This response does not convince me. Concretely, I think that if I'd show the prize to people in my lab and they actually looked at the judges (and I had some way of eliciting honest responses from them), I'd think that >60% would have some reactions according to what Sam and I described (i.e. seeing this prize as evidence that AI alignment concerns are mostly endorsed by (sometimes rich) people who have no clue about ML; or that the alignment community is dismissive of academia/peer-reviewed publishing/mainstream ML/default ways of doing science; or ... ). Your point 3.) about the feedback from ML researchers could convince me that I'm wrong, depending on whom exactly you got feedback from and how that looked like. By the way, I'm highlighting this point in particular not because it's highly critical (I haven't thought much about how critical it is), but because it seems relatively easy to fix.