AI safety field consensus

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)
• from https://intelligence.org/files/AIFoomDebate.pdf#page=517
  • "Machine intelligence would be a development of almost unprecedented impact and risk, well worth considering now."
  • "Feasible approaches include direct hand-coding, based on a few big and lots of little insights, and on emulations of real human brains."
  • "Machine intelligence will, more likely than not, appear within a century, even if the progress rate to date does not strongly suggest the next few decades."
  • "Math and deep insights (especially probability) can be powerful relative to trend fitting and crude analogies."
  • "Long-term historical trends are suggestive of future events, but not strongly so."
  • "Some should be thinking about how to create “friendly” machine intelligences."

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?