I agree with this post.

May be useful to include in the review with some of the comments, or with a postmortem and analysis by Ben (or someone).

I don't think the discussion stands great on its own, but it may be helpful for:

• people familiar with AI alignment who want to better understand some human factors behind 'the field isn't coordinating or converging on safety'.
• people new to AI alignment who want to use the views of leaders in the field to help them orient.

Seems like a good starting point for discussion. Researchers need to have some picture of what AI alignment is "for," in order to think about what research directions look most promising.

I want to see more attempts to answer this question. Also related to another post I nominated: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PKy8NuNPknenkDY74/soft-takeoff-can-still-lead-to-decisive-strategic-advantage 

I'm not a slow-takeoff proponent, and I don't agree with everything in this post; but I think it's asking a lot of the right questions and introducing some useful framings.

I've added the section-2 definitions above to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kLLu387fiwbis3otQ/cartesian-frames-definitions.

And now I've made a LW post collecting most of the definitions in the sequence so far, so they're easier to find: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kLLu387fiwbis3otQ/cartesian-frames-definitions 

I'm collecting most of the definitions from this sequence on one page, for easier reference: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kLLu387fiwbis3otQ/cartesian-frames-definitions 

For my personal use when I was helping review Scott's drafts, I made some mnemonics (complete with silly emojis to keep track of the small Cartesian frames and operations) here: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1bveBk5Pta_tml_4ezJ0oWiq-qudzgnsRlfbGJgZ1qv4/.

(Also includes my crude visualizations of morphism composition and homotopy equivalence to help those concepts stick better in my brain.)

Yep!