/explore
|
You are here 
|
www.lesswrong.com | ||
| | | | |
www.alignmentforum.org
|
|
| | | | | Summary The core ideas that constitute the multi-disciplinary view[1]on AI safety research are: ... | |
| | | | |
joecarlsmith.com
|
|
| | | | | A high-level picture of how we might get from here to safe superintelligence. | |
| | | | |
opentheory.net
|
|
| | | | | [AI summary] The text presents a critique of the Foundational Research Institute's (FRI) approach to defining and addressing suffering and s-risks, with a focus on the philosophical and metaphysical challenges of functionalism. The author, Mike Johnson, argues that FRI's reliance on functionalism leads to intractable problems, such as the inability to provide a clear, disagreement-mediating definition of suffering. He outlines several objections to FRI's position, including the ineffability of suffering, intuition duels, convergence requirements, and the mapping of consciousness to physical systems. Johnson suggests that FRI should consider alternative frameworks, such as computational hierarchies, to address these issues. The text also references various so... | |
| | | | |
www.alignmentforum.org
|
|
| | | We've just completed a bunch of empirical work on LLM debate, and we're excited to share the results. If the title of this post is at all interesting... | ||
