Center for Friendly Artificial Intelligence Research
Including “Friendly” is good for those that understand that it is being used as a jargon term with a specific meaning. Unfortunately it could give an undesirable impression of unsophisticated to the naive audience (which is the target).
Agreed that people are very likely to misunderstand it—however, even the obvious, naive reading still creates a useful approximation of what it is you guys actually do. I would consider that misreading to be a feature, not a flaw, because the layman’s reading produces a useful layman’s understanding.
The approximation might end up being ‘making androids to be friends with people’, or some kind of therapy-related research. Seriously. Given that even many people involved with AGI research do not seem to understand that Friendliness is a problem, I don’t think that the first impression generated by that word will be favorable.
It would be convenient to find some laymen to test on, since our simulations of a layman’s understanding may be in error.
I have no ability to do any actual random selection, but you raise a good point—some focus group testing on laymen would be a good precaution to take before settling on a name.
Including “Friendly” is good for those that understand that it is being used as a jargon term with a specific meaning. Unfortunately it could give an undesirable impression of unsophisticated to the naive audience (which is the target).
I also strongly object to ‘Friendly’ being used in the name—it’s a technical term that I think people are very likely to misunderstand.
Agreed that people are very likely to misunderstand it—however, even the obvious, naive reading still creates a useful approximation of what it is you guys actually do. I would consider that misreading to be a feature, not a flaw, because the layman’s reading produces a useful layman’s understanding.
The approximation might end up being ‘making androids to be friends with people’, or some kind of therapy-related research. Seriously. Given that even many people involved with AGI research do not seem to understand that Friendliness is a problem, I don’t think that the first impression generated by that word will be favorable.
It would be convenient to find some laymen to test on, since our simulations of a layman’s understanding may be in error.
I have no ability to do any actual random selection, but you raise a good point—some focus group testing on laymen would be a good precaution to take before settling on a name.