There is also this (incredibly well known?) website where (among other things) you can try to stay alive on a trip to Mars.

edit: And there is also No Vehicles in the Park.

Does the preference forming process count as thinking?  If so, then I suspect that my desire to communicate that I am deep/unique/interesting to my peers is a major force in my preference for fringe and unpopular musical artists over Beyonce/Justin Bieber/Taylor Swift/etc.  It's not the only factor, but it is a significant one AFAICT.

And I've also noticed that if I'm in a social context and I'm considering whether or not to use a narcotic (eg, alcohol), then I'm extremely concerned about what the other people around me will think about me abstaining (eg, I may want to avoid communicating that I disapprove of narcotic use or that I'm not fun).  In this case I'm just straight forwardly thinking about whether or not to take some action.

Are these examples of the sort of thing you are interested in? Or maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by the terms "thinking" and "signalling".

I think the way LLMs work might not be well described as having key internal gears or having an at-all illuminating python code sketch.

What motivates your believing that?

Would anyone like to have a conversation where we can intentionally practice pursuit of truth? (eg, ensure that we can pass eachother ITTs, avoid strawmanning, look for cruxes, etc)

I'm open to considering a wide range of propositions and questions, for example:

• What speech, if any, should be prohibited in high schools?
• Why don't universities do more explicit rationality training?
• Is death a harm?
• Under what conditions are centrally planned economies better than market economies?
• Is monarchy superior to democracy?

I'd define "genuine safety role" as "any qualified person will increase safety faster that capabilities in the role". I put ~0 likelihood that OAI has such a position. The best you could hope for is being a marginal support for a safety-based coup (which has already been attempted, and failed).

"~0 likelihood" means that you are nearly certain that OAI does not have such a position (ie, your usage of "likelihood" has the same meaning as "degree of certainty" or "strength of belief")?  I'm being pedantic because I'm not a probability expert and AFAIK "likelihood" has some technical usage in probability.

If you're up for answering more questions like this, then how likely do you believe it is that OAI has a position where at least 90% of people who are both, (A) qualified skill wise (eg, ML and interpretability expert), and, (B) believes that AIXR is a serious problem, would increase safety faster than capabilities in that position?

There's a different question of "could a strategic person advance net safety by working at OpenAI, more so than any other option?". I believe people like that exist, but they don't need 80k to tell them about OpenAI. 

This is a good point and you mentioning it updates me towards believing that you are more motivated by (1) finding out what's true regarding AIXR and (2) reducing AIXR, than something like (3) shit talking OAI.

I asked a related question a few months ago, ie, if one becomes doom pilled while working as an executive at an AI lab and one strongly values survival, what should one do?

Can I request tabooing the phrase "genuine safety role" in favor of more detailed description of the work that's done?

I suspect that would provide some value, but did you mean to respond to @Elizabeth?

I was just trying to use the term as a synonym for "actual safety role" as @Elizabeth used it in her original comment.

There's broad disagreement about which kinds of research are (or should count as) "AI safety", and what's required for that to succeed. 

This part of your comment seems accurate to me, but I'm not a domain expert.

Can you clarify what you mean by "completely unjustified"?  For example, if OpenAI says "This role is a safety role.", then in your opinion, what is the probability that the role is a genuine safety role?