I don’t think this is true. While he probably wouldn’t announce it if he was working on AI, he’ has indicated that he’s working on two books (HPMoR and a rationality book), and has another book queued. He’s also indicated that he doesn’t think anyone should work on AI until the goal system stability problem is solved, which he’s talked about thinking about but hasn’t published anything on, which probably means he’s stuck.
I more meant “he’s probably thinking about this in the back of his mind fairly often”, as well as trying to be humourous.
He’s also indicated that he doesn’t think anyone should work on AI until the goal system stability problem is solved, which he’s talked about thinking about but hasn’t published anything on, which probably means he’s stuck.
Do you know what he would think of work that has a small chance of solving goal stability and a slightly larger chance of helping with AI in general? This seems like a net plus to me, but you seem to have heard what he thinks should be studied from a slightly clearer source than I did.
I don’t think this is true. While he probably wouldn’t announce it if he was working on AI, he’ has indicated that he’s working on two books (HPMoR and a rationality book), and has another book queued. He’s also indicated that he doesn’t think anyone should work on AI until the goal system stability problem is solved, which he’s talked about thinking about but hasn’t published anything on, which probably means he’s stuck.
I more meant “he’s probably thinking about this in the back of his mind fairly often”, as well as trying to be humourous.
Do you know what he would think of work that has a small chance of solving goal stability and a slightly larger chance of helping with AI in general? This seems like a net plus to me, but you seem to have heard what he thinks should be studied from a slightly clearer source than I did.