People sometimes characterize differences between ideologies in rat-adj spaces. For instance there’s Scott Aaronson’s reform vs orthodox AI risk distinction.
Those ideological differences tend to mix together multiple distinct beliefs, for instance Scott Aaronson says that reform AI risk thinkers both tend to believe “that trying to get a broad swath of the public on board with one’s preferred AI policy is something close to a deontological imperative” and “that research on actually-existing systems as one of the only ways to get feedback from the world about which AI safety ideas are or aren’t promising”.
Mixing together multiple distinct beliefs into a single axis isn’t necessarily unreasonable if they are correlated. But it would be interesting to me to ask about a bunch of specific beliefs so that the correlations can be mapped out using standard methods such as PCA/factor analysis.
This makes sense. There are parts of what Scott Aaronson describes as “reform thinkers” that are obviously or probably correct, and also some elements that are disturbingly misguided. The bits and pieces of the axis are what’s valuable, not the axis itself.
My biggest preference for future surveys:
People sometimes characterize differences between ideologies in rat-adj spaces. For instance there’s Scott Aaronson’s reform vs orthodox AI risk distinction.
Those ideological differences tend to mix together multiple distinct beliefs, for instance Scott Aaronson says that reform AI risk thinkers both tend to believe “that trying to get a broad swath of the public on board with one’s preferred AI policy is something close to a deontological imperative” and “that research on actually-existing systems as one of the only ways to get feedback from the world about which AI safety ideas are or aren’t promising”.
Mixing together multiple distinct beliefs into a single axis isn’t necessarily unreasonable if they are correlated. But it would be interesting to me to ask about a bunch of specific beliefs so that the correlations can be mapped out using standard methods such as PCA/factor analysis.
Be advised, the request for comments is up for the 2023 version.
This makes sense. There are parts of what Scott Aaronson describes as “reform thinkers” that are obviously or probably correct, and also some elements that are disturbingly misguided. The bits and pieces of the axis are what’s valuable, not the axis itself.