/explore
|
You are here 
|
www.alignmentforum.org | ||
| | | | |
www.greaterwrong.com
Suppose that 1% of the world's resources are controlled by unaligned AI, and 99% of the world's resources are controlled by humans. We might hope that at least 99% of the universe's resources end up being used for stuff-humans-like (in expectation). Jessica Taylor argued for this conclusion in Strategies for Coalitions in Unit-Sum Games: if the humans divide into 99 groups each of which acquires influence as effectively as the unaligned AI, then by symmetry each group should end, up with as much influence as the AI, i.e. they should end up with 99% of the influence. |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
joecarlsmith.com
On blocking paths to power, and on making deals. |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
blog.redwoodresearch.org
More thoughts on making deals with schemers |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
www.greaterwrong.com
Twitter | Paper PDF Seven years ago, OpenAI five had just been released, and many people in the AI safety community expected AIs to be opaque RL agents. Luckily, we ended up with reasoning models that speak their thoughts clearly enough for us to follow along (most of the time). In a new multi-org position paper, we argue that we should try to preserve this level of reasoning transparency and turn chain of thought monitorability into a systematic AI safety agenda. This is a measure that improves safety in the medium term, and it might not scale to superintelligence even if somehow a superintelligent AI still does its reasoning in English. We hope that extending the time when chains of thought are monitorable will help us do more science on capable models, pr... |
|
| | | |||
