/explore
|
You are here 
|
joecarlsmith.com | ||
| | | | |
www.greaterwrong.com
Crossposted by habryka with Sam's permission. Expect lower probability for Sam to respond to comments here than if he had posted it (he said he'll be traveling a bunch in the coming weeks, so might not have time to respond to anything). This piece reflects my current best guess at the major goals that Anthropic (or another similarly positioned AI developer) will need to accomplish to have things go well with the development of broadly superhuman AI. Given my role and background, it's disproportionately focused on technical research and on averting emerging catastrophic risks. |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
www.greaterwrong.com
(Update Dec 2025: This series has been almost entirely superseded by a newer and more polished series, available here. This is the second in a series of four posts about how we might solve the alignment problem. See the first post for an introduction to this project and a summary of the posts that have been released thus far.) In my last post, I laid out the ontology I'm going to use for thinking about approaches to solving the alignment problem (that is, the problem of building superintelligent AI agents, and becoming able to elicit their beneficial capabilities, with succumbing to the bad kind of AI takeover[1]). In particular: |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
www.alignmentforum.org
> This post is part of my AI strategy nearcasting series: trying to answer key strategic questions about transformative AI, under the assumption that... |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
www.lesswrong.com
On boxing AIs, and on making deals with them. |
|
| | | |||
