Difference between revisions of "AI safety field consensus"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* 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) | ||
* advanced AI will have a huge impact on the world | * advanced AI will have a huge impact on the world | ||
| + | * [[Counterfactual of dropping a seed AI into a world without other capable AI]] (?) (even Robin Hanson agrees) | ||
| + | * [[Discontinuities in usefulness of whole brain emulation technology]] (?) (even Robin Hanson agrees) | ||
see also "Background AI safety intuitions" section in [https://agentfoundations.org/item?id=1129] | see also "Background AI safety intuitions" section in [https://agentfoundations.org/item?id=1129] | ||
Revision as of 03:33, 10 May 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)
- advanced AI will have a huge impact on the world
- Counterfactual of dropping a seed AI into a world without other capable AI (?) (even Robin Hanson agrees)
- Discontinuities in usefulness of whole brain emulation technology (?) (even Robin Hanson agrees)
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?
