It is utterly dogshit how fucking bad all the explanations of what Agent Foundations is, are. Why do none of them try to be plain, precise, unambiguous and professional?
Why do they all insist on fucking analogies rather than just saying the actual thing they mean? It comes off as the research not being serious or real or the person saying it either no knowing what they’re talking about, not being good at communicating or not putting in the fucking effort to try to explain things without wasting the readers time.
I feel like this is fundamentally down to the funding situation in alignment being donation based so people get financially rewarded more for things that sound cool/useful than actually being very useful for alignment research.
It is utterly dogshit how fucking bad all the explanations of what Agent Foundations is, are. Why do none of them try to be plain, precise, unambiguous and professional?
Why do they all insist on fucking analogies rather than just saying the actual thing they mean? It comes off as the research not being serious or real or the person saying it either no knowing what they’re talking about, not being good at communicating or not putting in the fucking effort to try to explain things without wasting the readers time.
I feel like this is fundamentally down to the funding situation in alignment being donation based so people get financially rewarded more for things that sound cool/useful than actually being very useful for alignment research.
Isn’t this the main original explanation of Agent Foundations? It’s plain, unambiguous and professional. What explanations are you referring to?
I looked at that and it’s in large part either about persuasion or story telling rather than a precise useful explanation
Just a random thought: could you ask an AI to rewrite it to the form you want?
And no, this is not because Agent Foundations is some super duper ultra mega mysterious hard to describe thing.
Yes, I think the swearing is warranted. This is an embarassment.