Future planning

things to talk about:

• how doomed ML safety approaches are e.g. see discussion here -- How doomed are ML safety approaches?
  • there's the sort of opposite question of, how doomed is MIRI's approach? i.e. if there turns out to be no simple core algorithm for agency, or if understanding agency better doesn't help us build an AGI, then we might not be in a better place wrt aligning AI.
• can MIRI-type research be done in time to help with AGI? see this comment
• prior on difficulty of alignment, and ideas like "if ML-based safety were to have any shot at working, wouldn't we just go all the way and expect the default (no EA intervention) approach to AGI to just produce basically ok outcomes?"
• list of things people disagree about:
  • probability of doom
  • civilizational adequacy
  • probability of doom without any special EA intervention
  • shape of takeoff
  • what precursors/narrow systems we will see prior to AGI
  • AI timelines
  • what the first AGI will look like
  • how big of a problem collusion between subsystems of an AI will be
  • how likely optimization daemons are or what they will look like
  • whether there is a basic of attraction for corrigibility
  • whether an AGI will look like a utility maximizer?
  • something-like-realism-about-rationality
  • whether MIRI-type work can be done in time
  • whether ML-based approaches are doomed
  • whether "weird recursions" are a good idea
  • whether we can correct mistakes when deploying AI systems as they come up (i.e. how catastrophic the initial problems will be)
  • how many/how "lumpy" insights are for creating an AGI
  • how much sharing/trading there will be between different AI companies (eliezer vs Robin Hanson) -- this one is downstream of lumpiness of insights, because hanson expects that if there are very few insights needed to get to AGI, then there won't be any need for sharing (so in that case even hanson would agree with eliezer).