5 is obviously the ‘best’ answer, but is also a pretty big imposition on you, especially for something this speculative. 6 is a valid and blameless—if not actively praiseworthy—default. 2 is good if you have a friend like that and are reasonably confident they’d memoryhole it if it’s dangerous and expect them to be able to help (though fwiw I’d wager you’d get less helpful input this way than you’d expect: no one person knows everything about the field so you can’t guarantee they’d know if/how it’s been done, and inferential gaps are always larger than you expect so explaining it right might be surprisingly difficult/impossible).
I think the best algorithm would be along the lines of:
5 iff you feel like being nice and find yourself with enough spare time and energy
. . . and if you don’t . . .
7, where the ‘something else’ is posting the exact thing you just posted and seeing if any trustworthy AI scientists DM you about it
5 is obviously the ‘best’ answer, but is also a pretty big imposition on you, especially for something this speculative. 6 is a valid and blameless—if not actively praiseworthy—default. 2 is good if you have a friend like that and are reasonably confident they’d memoryhole it if it’s dangerous and expect them to be able to help (though fwiw I’d wager you’d get less helpful input this way than you’d expect: no one person knows everything about the field so you can’t guarantee they’d know if/how it’s been done, and inferential gaps are always larger than you expect so explaining it right might be surprisingly difficult/impossible).
I think the best algorithm would be along the lines of:
5 iff you feel like being nice and find yourself with enough spare time and energy
. . . and if you don’t . . .
7, where the ‘something else’ is posting the exact thing you just posted and seeing if any trustworthy AI scientists DM you about it
. . . and if they don’t . . .
6
I’m curious to see what other people say.
The answer I followed ended up being 2 into 6.