This is a special post for quick takes by Jonas Hallgren. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
I was going through my old stuff and I found this from a year and a half ago so I thought I would just post it here real quickly as I found the last idea funny and the first idea to be pretty interesting:
In normal business there exist consulting firms that are specialised in certain topics, ensuring that organisations can take in an outside view from experts on the topic.
This seems quite an efficient way of doing things and something that, if built up properly within alignment, could lead to faster progress down the line. This is also something that the future fund seemed to be interested in as they gave prices for both the idea of creating an org focused on creating datasets and one on taking in human feedback. These are not the only ideas that are possible, however, and below I mention some more possible orgs that are likely to be net positive.
Newly minted alignment researchers will probably have a while to go before they can become fully integrated into a team. One can, therefore, imagine an organisation that takes in inexperienced alignment researchers and helps them write papers. They then promote these alignment researchers as being able to help with certain things. Real orgs can then easily take them in for contracting on specific problems. This should help involve market forces in the alignment area and should in general, improve the efficiency of the space. There are reasons why consulting firms exist in real life and creating the equivalent of Mackenzie in alignment is probably a good idea. Yet I might be wrong in this and if you can argue why it would make the space less efficient, I would love to hear it.
We don't want the wrong information to spread, something between a normal marketing firm and the Chinese "marketing" agency, If it's an info-hazard then shut the fuck up!