Chris_Leong

# Wiki Contributions

Challenges with Breaking into MIRI-Style Research

In science and engineering, people will usually try very hard to make progress by standing on the shoulders of others. The discourse on this forum, on the other hand, more often resembles that of a bunch of crabs in a bucket.

Hmm... Yeah, I certainly don't think that there's enough collaboration or appreciation of the insights that other approaches may provide.

Any thoughts on how to encourage a healthier dynamic.

Challenges with Breaking into MIRI-Style Research

The object-level claims here seem straightforwardly true, but I think "challenges with breaking into MIRI-style research" is a misleading way to characterize it. The post makes it sound like these are problems with the pipeline for new researchers, but really these problems are all driven by challenges of the kind of research involved.

There's definitely some truth to this, but I guess I'm skeptical that there isn't anything that we can do about some of these challenges. Actually, rereading I can see that you've conceded this towards the end of your post. I agree that there might be a limit to how much progress we can make on these issues, but I think we shouldn't rule out making progress too quickly.

Figuring out new paths, new frames, applying new skills and knowledge, explaining your own ways of evaluating outputs... these are all central pieces of doing this kind of research. If the pipeline did not force people to figure this sort of stuff out, then it would not select for researchers well-suited to this kind of work.

Some of these aspects don't really select for people with the ability to figure this kind of stuff out, but rather strongly select for people who have either saved up money to fund themselves or who happen to be located in the Bay Area, ect.

We don't know the right frames to apply (and if we just picked some, they'd probably be wrong)

Philosophy often has this problem and they address this by covering a wide range of perspectives with the hope that you're inspired by the readings even if none of them are correct.

We don't have clear shared standards for evaluating work. Most people doing MIRI-style research think most other people doing MIRI-style research are going about it all wrong. Whatever perception of credibility might be generated by something paper-like would likely be fake.

This is a hugely difficult problem, but maybe it's better to try rather than not try at all?

Challenges with Breaking into MIRI-Style Research

Even if the content is proportional, the signal-to-noise ratio will still be much higher for those interested in MIRI-style research. This is a natural consequence of being a niche area.

When I said "might not have the capacity to vet", I was referring to a range of orgs.

I would be surprised if the lack of papers didn't have an effect as presumably, you're trying to highlight high-quality work and people are more motivated to go the extra yard when trying to get published because both the rewards and standards are higher.

Challenges with Breaking into MIRI-Style Research

Just some sort of official & long-term& OFFLINE study program that would teach some of the previous published MIRI research would be hugely beneficial for growing the AF community.

Agreed.

At the last EA global there was some sort of AI safety breakout session. There were ~12 tables with different topics. I was dismayed to discover that almost every table was full with people excitingly discussing various topics in prosaic AI alignment and other things the AF table had just 2 (!) people.

Wow, didn't realise it was that little!

I have spoken with MIRI people arguing for the need to establish something like a PhD apprentice-style system. Not much interest.

Do you know why they weren't interested?

Challenges with Breaking into MIRI-Style Research

Sorry, I wasn't criticizing your work.

I think that the lack of an equivalent of papers for MIRI-style research also plays a role here in that if someone writes a paper it's more likely to make it into the newsletter. So the issue is further down the pipeline.

$1000 USD prize - Circular Dependency of Counterfactuals Hmm... Oh, I think that was elsewhere on this thread. Probably not to you. Eliezer's Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom seems to embrace a circular epistemology despite its title.$1000 USD prize - Circular Dependency of Counterfactuals

Wait, I was under the impression from the quoted text that you make a distinction between 'circular epistemology' and 'other types of epistemology that will hit a point where we can provide no justification at all'. i.e. these other types are not circular because they are ultimately defined as a set of axioms, rewriting rules, and observational protocols for which no further justification is being attempted.

If you're referring to the Wittgenstenian quote, I was merely quoting him, not endorsing his views.

$1000 USD prize - Circular Dependency of Counterfactuals Yeah, I believe epistemology to be inherently circular. I think it has some relation to counterfactuals being circular, but I don't see it as quite the same as counterfactuals seem a lot harder to avoid using than most other concept. The point of mentioning circular epistemology was to persuade people that my theory isn't as absurd as it sounds at first.$1000 USD prize - Circular Dependency of Counterfactuals

What I mean is that some people seem to think that if they can describe a system that explains counterfactuals without mentioning counterfactuals when explaining them that they've avoided a circular dependence. When of course, we can't just take things at face value, but have to dig deeper than that.

\$1000 USD prize - Circular Dependency of Counterfactuals

I added a comment on the post directly, but I will add: we seem to roughly agree on counterfactuals existing in the imagination in a broad sense (I highlighted two ways this can go above - with counterfactuals being an intrinsic part of how we interact with the world or a pragmatic response to navigating the world). However, I think that following this through and asking why we care about them if they're just in our imagination ends up taking us down a path where counterfactuals being circular seems plausible. On the other hand, you seem to think that this path takes us somewhere where there isn't any circularity. Anyway, that's the difference in our positions as far as I can tell from having just skimmed your link.