Top postsTop post
This is my second article on journalist coverage of AI and AI safety movements after the HuggingFace incident. The first one was about Garrison Lovely's "Obsolete", and was more of a review. You can read it here. Kevin Roose, longtime journalist at the New York Times and now cohost of...
I’ve just finished reading Garrison Lovely’s recently released book, “Obsolete.” I wish I had time for a longer review, but I’ll give a brief one and highlight some particularly interesting sections below. I think it’s a great introduction to non-technical readers and even as a pretty dedicated reader of AI...
"AI as a Normal Technology" (AINT), proposed as a counterweight to "AI as an Abnormal Technology" (AIAbT) makes much more sense as a prescriptive / normative framework than a descriptive one. To be clear, the fact that they could be different frameworks isn’t an entirely novel observation; the authors directly...
We are likely in a situation where the most powerful models in the world are internal models, and, here's a key distinction, potentially even models that are never intended to be released to the public (i.e. a model designed to provide internal uplift on capabilities during training but that is...
Subtitle: And maybe second best is AI safety? Further reading: So many things, but: Gradual Disempowerment, The Normalization of Deviance in AI Development, Let’s Think About Slowing Down AI, Doom as a bad method, not a utopia tradeoff, Teleoperated Humans 10/3 Update: General cleanup + Added short snippet about young...
TL;DR: Collaborating to reduce catastrophic risks seems very possible even for policymakers with very different goals. The race for general superintelligence is often described as a bipolar race between two rival hegemons, the US and China. A lot has been written about how, even within this framework, it is not...