I have made a map of the AI Safety Community! The map is greatly inspired by the map of the rationalist community made by Scott Alexander. There are bound to be omissions and misunderstandings, and I will be grateful for any corrections. I promise that I will incorporate the feedback...
I am hosting a weekly AI Safety reading group, and perhaps someone here would be interested in joining. Here is what the reading group has covered so far: http://airca.dk/reading_group.htm Next week, on Wednesday the 1st of February 19:45 UTC, we will discuss "How Feasible is the Rapid Development of Artificial...
This year's Spring ACX Meetup everywhere in Copenhagen.
Location: H. J. Holsts Vej 3-5C, 2605 Brøndby – https://plus.codes/9F7JMCCQ+4XR
Group Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/events/JTEpLhhjAbK4jiuuJ/copenhagen-acx-risk-from-ai-community-conference
RSVP on LessWrong. This meetup in particular is AI X-Risk themed, but feel free to show up and discuss other subjects.
Contact: soeren.elverlin@gmail.com
This year's Fall ACX Meetup everywhere in Copenhagen.
Location: Rundholtsvej 10, 2300 Copenhagen S – https://plus.codes/9F7JMH38+GFJ
Group Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/events/xsAqbxvT8PD8kCgcr/astralcodexten-lesswrong-meetup-5jau
RSVP on LessWrong
Contact: soeren.elverlin@gmail.com
This year's Spring ACX Meetup everywhere in Copenhagen.
Location: Rundholtsvej 10, 2300 Copenhagen S – https://plus.codes/9F7JMH38+GFM
Group Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/events/va9fsFSYcrWRkmFpH/astralcodexten-lesswrong-meetup-9
RSVP on LessWrong
Contact: soeren.elverlin@gmail.com
This year's ACX Meetup everywhere in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Location: Rundholtsvej 10, 2300 København S. My roof terrace can accommodate us unless we are twice as many as last time. In that case, we will move to the green area in front of the house – ///halvdel.kviste.synger
Contact: soeren.elverlin@gmail.com
Thank you for explaining.
Thank you for your comments. I have included them in version 1.1 of the map, where I have swapped FRI and OpenAI/DeepMind, added Crystal Trilogy and corrected the spelling of Vernor Vinge.
I have made a map of the AI Safety Community!
The map is greatly inspired by the map of the rationalist community made by Scott Alexander.
There are bound to be omissions and misunderstandings, and I will be grateful for any corrections. I promise that I will incorporate the feedback into a new version of the map.
The sizes of the cities/dwellings reflect my understanding of how much they contribute to AI Safety. The locations and borders reflect my judgement of who focus on what, and I had to make some difficult choices.
(Made with Fractal Mapper 8, and crossposted to AISafety.com and r/controlProblem)
I hope that you will find the map useful, and find inspiration to visit new places.
I have taken the survey.
I think difference in date of birth (1922 vs ~1960) is less important than difference of date of publication (2003 vs ~2015).
On the Outside View, is criticism 12 years after publication more likely to be valid than criticism levelled immediately? I do not know. On one hand, science generally improves over time. On the other hand, if a particular work get the first criticism after many years, it could mean that the work is of higher quality.
I should clarify that I am referring to the section David Chapman calls: "Historical appendix: Where did the confusion come from?". I read it as a criticism of both Jaynes and his book.
No, I do know what Yudkowsky's argument is. Truth be told, I probably would be able to evaluate the arguments, but I have not considered it important. Should I look into it?
I care about whether "The Outside View" works as a technique for evaluating such controversies.
Yes! From the Outside View, this is exactly what I would expect substantial, well-researched criticism to look like. Appears very scientific, contains plenty of references, is peer-reviewed and published in "Journal of Statistical Physics" and has 29 citations.
Friedman and Shimonys criticism of MAXENT is in stark contrast to David Chapmans criticism of "Probability Theory".
Could you post a link to a criticism similar to David Chapman?
The primary criticism I could find was the errata. From the Outside View, the errata looks like a number of mathematically minded people found it to be worth their time to submit corrections. If they had thought that E. T. Jaynes was hopelessly confused, they would not have submitted corrections of this kind.
I don't think it's a good sign for a book if there isn't anybody to be found that criticizes it.
I think it is a good sign for a Mathematics book that there isn't anybody to be found that criticizes it except people with far inferior credentials.
Thank you for pointing this out. I did not do my background check far enough back in time. This substantially weakens my case.
I am still inclined to be skeptical, and I have found another red flag. As far as I can tell, E. T. Jaynes is generally very highly regarded, and the only person who is critical of his book is David Chapman. This is just from doing a couple of searches on the Internet.
There are many people studying logic and probability. I would expect some of them would find it worthwhile to comment on this topic if they agreed with David Chapman.
I am hosting a weekly AI Safety reading group, and perhaps someone here would be interested in joining.
Here is what the reading group has covered so far:
http://airca.dk/reading_group.htm
Next week, on Wednesday the 1st of February 19:45 UTC, we will discuss "How Feasible is the Rapid Development of Artificial Superintelligence?" by Kaj Sotala. I publish some slides before each meeting, and present the article, so you can also join if you have have not read the article.
