Meta-level: Yes, don’t publish, do gather ideas from high-profile alignment folks. If you want to be believed fast, go through social networks. If you don’t know anyone who can connect you to high-profile folks, and you have any cred as a researcher or AF member, contact alignment researchers and say you have some research you want to video chat with them about, it’ll probably work.
Object level: AGI? Now? Oh dear. I think we’re probably doomed. Hail marys might look like trying to amplify human reasoning, trying to hastily throw together a reward system that models humans in a good way, or gambling on executing a pivotal act with a smart-but-not-too-smart version.
More specifically at the meta-level: Cold-email one person at each of up to three leading safety orgs, giving precise technical details of what caused you to believe that you had built a general intelligence. Eg what loss or pass@k scores on which evaluations (across a range of scales), compute budget, observed training dynamics, etc.
This is a credible way to signal “I am not a crank” without realising any significant publication risk, or, in the case that cranks follow these instructions, wasting too much of researchers’ time.
(as always, opinions my own, not representative of my employer, etc.)
(Since I had to look it up: pass@k is the AlphaCode paper’s name for the metric “if we generate k samples, what’s the chance that at least 1 solves the coding challenge.”)
Meta-level: Yes, don’t publish, do gather ideas from high-profile alignment folks. If you want to be believed fast, go through social networks. If you don’t know anyone who can connect you to high-profile folks, and you have any cred as a researcher or AF member, contact alignment researchers and say you have some research you want to video chat with them about, it’ll probably work.
Object level: AGI? Now? Oh dear. I think we’re probably doomed. Hail marys might look like trying to amplify human reasoning, trying to hastily throw together a reward system that models humans in a good way, or gambling on executing a pivotal act with a smart-but-not-too-smart version.
More specifically at the meta-level: Cold-email one person at each of up to three leading safety orgs, giving precise technical details of what caused you to believe that you had built a general intelligence. Eg what loss or pass@k scores on which evaluations (across a range of scales), compute budget, observed training dynamics, etc.
This is a credible way to signal “I am not a crank” without realising any significant publication risk, or, in the case that cranks follow these instructions, wasting too much of researchers’ time.
(as always, opinions my own, not representative of my employer, etc.)
(Since I had to look it up: pass@k is the AlphaCode paper’s name for the metric “if we generate k samples, what’s the chance that at least 1 solves the coding challenge.”)