Result from Ron Maimon’s review of the QM sequence:
I skimmed a majority of the articles, and there are no glaring errors that I could find, but there is an unnecessary verbosity which is best eliminated by reading a terser introduction to the Everett interpretation. The amount of text that is presented is not commensurate with the amount of insight.
That seems less valuable. The QM sequences are largely there to set out what is supposed to be an existing, widespread understanding of QM. No such understanding exists for AI risk.
Excellent idea—done. Thank you!
Result from Ron Maimon’s review of the QM sequence:
(more at the link from ciphergoth’s post)
You could also ask for an independent evaluation of AI risks here.
That seems less valuable. The QM sequences are largely there to set out what is supposed to be an existing, widespread understanding of QM. No such understanding exists for AI risk.