I’d done that with 1 and 2, and probably should’ve cited them. I did cite a recent brief summary of Steve’s work, and my work prior to getting excited about LMCAs was very similar to his. In practice, it seems like what Conjecture is working on is pretty much exactly this. I wasn’t familiar with LeCun’s scheme, so thanks for sharing.
The brainlike cognitive architecture proposed by Steve (and me) and LeCun’s are similar in that they’re cognitive architectures with steering systems. Which is an advantage. I also wrote about this here.
But they don’t have the central advantage of a chain of thought in English. That’s what I’m most excited about. If we don’t get this type of system as the first AGI, I hope we at least get one with a steering system (and I think we will; steering is practical as well as safer). But I think this type of natural language chain of thought alignment approach has large advantages.
You might want to compare your ideas to (1) Conjecture’s CoEms (2) brain-like AGI safety by @Steven Byrnes (3) Yann LeCun’s ideas.
I’d done that with 1 and 2, and probably should’ve cited them. I did cite a recent brief summary of Steve’s work, and my work prior to getting excited about LMCAs was very similar to his. In practice, it seems like what Conjecture is working on is pretty much exactly this. I wasn’t familiar with LeCun’s scheme, so thanks for sharing.
The brainlike cognitive architecture proposed by Steve (and me) and LeCun’s are similar in that they’re cognitive architectures with steering systems. Which is an advantage. I also wrote about this here.
But they don’t have the central advantage of a chain of thought in English. That’s what I’m most excited about. If we don’t get this type of system as the first AGI, I hope we at least get one with a steering system (and I think we will; steering is practical as well as safer). But I think this type of natural language chain of thought alignment approach has large advantages.