How to Reduce Existential Risk From AI Alignment

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

How do we build a beneficial advanced artificial intelligence? And I think you have thought specifically on like the use of resources in that kind of research. So basically, how do we use money to reduce the risk that something goes really horribly? Yeah. Some of the stuff that we do in AI alignment is stuff that we want are going to be wanting to do at the end.

Read the full transcript here.

How hard is it to arrive at true beliefs about the world? How can you find enjoyment in being wrong? When presenting claims that will be scrutinized by others, is it better to hedge and pad the claims in lots of caveats and uncertainty, or to strive for a tone that matches (or perhaps even exaggerates) the intensity with which you hold your beliefs? Why should you maybe focus on drilling small skills when learning a new skill set? What counts as a "simple" question? How can you tell when you actually understand something and when you don't? What is "cargo culting"? Which features of AI are likely in the future to become existential threats? What are the hardest parts of AI research? What skills will we probably really wish we had on the eve of deploying superintelligent AIs?

Buck Shlegeris is the CTO of Redwood Research, an independent AI alignment research organization. He currently leads their interpretability research. He previously worked on research and outreach at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. His website is shlegeris.com.

Staff