Difference between revisions of "AI safety field consensus"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* [[Orthogonality thesis]] | * [[Orthogonality thesis]] | ||
* [[Instrumental convergence]] | * [[Instrumental convergence]] | ||
| − | * Edge instantiation | + | * [[Edge instantiation]] |
| + | * [[Patch resistance]] | ||
* Goodhart problems i.e. awareness that [[Goodhart's law]] is a thing, and general attention/wariness of it | * Goodhart problems i.e. awareness that [[Goodhart's law]] is a thing, and general attention/wariness of it | ||
* AGI possible in principle (as in, it is virtually certain that humans can create AGI) | * AGI possible in principle (as in, it is virtually certain that humans can create AGI) | ||
Revision as of 04:24, 25 February 2020
People in AI safety tend to disagree about many things. However, there is also wide agreement about some other things (which people outside the field often disagree about).
- Orthogonality thesis
- Instrumental convergence
- Edge instantiation
- Patch resistance
- Goodhart problems i.e. awareness that Goodhart's law is a thing, and general attention/wariness of it
- AGI possible in principle (as in, it is virtually certain that humans can create AGI)
see also "Background AI safety intuitions" section in [1]
one operationalization might be something like: what are the things relevant to AI safety that all of Eliezer Yudkowsky, Paul Christiano, Robin Hanson, Rohin Shah, Dario Amodei, and Wei Dai agree on?
