Has anyone looked into how it compares to stannous fluoride?
Scott Aaronson recently wrote something relevant to these issues:
Max Ra: What would change your mind to explore research on the AI alignment problem? For a week? A month? A semester?
Scott: The central thing would be finding an actual potentially-answerable technical question around AI alignment, even just a small one, that piqued my interest and that I felt like I had an unusual angle on. In general, I have an absolutely terrible track record at working on topics because I abstractly feel like I “should” work on them. My entire scientific career has basically just been letting myself get nerd-sniped by one puzzle after the next.
... (read more)Matt Putz: [...] do you think that money
I have a few questions to the subset of readers who:
I would love to hear your thoughts on some of the following questions:
Can someone explain to me why we don't see people with differing complex views on something placing bets in a similar fashion more often?
Would it be helpful to think about something like "what Brier score will a person in the reference class of "people-similar-to-Eliezer_2022-in-all-relevant-ways" have after making a bunch of predictions on Metaculus?" Perhaps we should set up this sort of question on Metaculus or Manifold? Though I would probably refrain from explicitly mentioning Eliezer in it.
It's funny that this post has probably made me feel more doomy about AI risk than any other LW post published this year. Perhaps for no particularly good reason. There's just something really disturbing to me about seeing a vivid case where folks like Jacob, Eli and Samotsvety, apparently along with many others, predict a tiny chance that a certain thing in AI progress will happen (by a certain time), and then it just... happens.