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.”)
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.”)