Intelligence Intelligence

  • If AI is an existential risk, it is a national security risk
  • If AI is a national security risk, it is a risk intelligence agencies would be interested in
  • If intelligence (in the spook sense) communities are interested in a risk, they are likely to develop a formal or informal research agenda into that risk
  • If research agenda's in friendly AI exist that are not MIRI's, MIRI may be interested in accessing said research agenda
  • Thought MIRI's full technical research agenda is secret, it is plausible that they are not currently collaborating with intelligence agencies
  • MIRI may stand to benefit from access to AI research agendas from intelligence communities
  • If MIRI is unable to achieve collaborations on their own, LW activists may be able to assist them
  • Therefore, LW activists may have an interest in 'penetrating' intelligence agencies to extricate their technical research agendas around AI pursuant to greater research excellence and collaboration on AI safety and control problems.
  • If this is in MIRI's interest, it may be in a given rationalists interest
  • Rationalists with AI subject matter expertise may be interested in pursuing friendly AI research at the object level instead
  • Non subject matter experts may be interests in penetration with the intention of general access to an intelligence communities knowledge
  • Intelligence forces actively disqualify those with open curiosity about intelligence matters:

    'Viewing or downloading information from a secure system beyond the clearance subject’s need-to-know' is cause for rejection of a security clearance in Australia

  • Therefore, penetrating intelligence communities for the purposes of creating greater transparency in the friendly AI research arena without AI subject matter expertise which may improve the likelihood of being assigned to AI safety specifically may be a poor use of one's time.

Your first three bullet points seem to imply that entities like the NSA should be expected to have research programmes dedicated to things like pandemics and asteroid strikes. That seems unlikely to me; why would the NSA or CIA or whatever be the right venue for such research? The only advantage of doing it in house rather than letting organizations dedicated to health and space handle it would be if somehow there were some nation-specific interests optimized by keeping their research secret. Which seems unlikely, because if human life is wiped out by an a... (read more)

2ChristianKl5yI find it unlikely that US services have such programs without a person like Peter Thiel being aware of the existance of those programs. You don't get research collaboration by a strategy of treating other stakeholders in a hostile manner and thinking about penetrating them.

Open thread, Oct. 19 - Oct. 25, 2015

by MrMind 1 min read19th Oct 2015198 comments


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.