That’s great, thanks! “Go have your AI summarize” is always on the table, but it’s an abdication of important work. IF the author can’t or won’t summarize their work, it’s not likely to be worth my reading time UNLESS it’s obviously on a topic of exceptional interest AND has some indication of a new direction of thought or useful conclusions.
However, your summary still doesn’t say to what degree you’re claiming to have a useful direction in steering society away from creating takeover-capable AI (or AGI at all). And I didn’t really understand that was the goal either until reading your response to the other comment. So I recommend revising that summary with that in mind—that makes me far more interested.
But I don’t have time to read if the only claim is “I thought about it” not “I’ve got some useful conclusions or directions”. I need to stay focused on my primary job, technical alignment, and many here will similarly not devote time to a long post with no clear claim of usefulness.
Sorry to be a debbie downer! Writing is hard, and there’s a fierce competition for attention here!
I appreciate the continued engagement and trust that you’re helping make this post, and even more, my writing in general more worthwhile for reading as well as producing.
I plugged in what seemed most substantial from my comment below and added a few candid sentences addressing your specifying question.
Since this post is intended to be more meta-level and to set up context for subsequent work, I can’t make promises for this containing object-level “useful conclusions or directions”—is anything that doesn’t check that box just “thinking about it” and therefore undeserving of attention? (Not even as much as going through the outline?)
I’m curious about your honest opinion, I may differ on it but still think it’s best to make it explicit.
That’s great, thanks! “Go have your AI summarize” is always on the table, but it’s an abdication of important work. IF the author can’t or won’t summarize their work, it’s not likely to be worth my reading time UNLESS it’s obviously on a topic of exceptional interest AND has some indication of a new direction of thought or useful conclusions.
However, your summary still doesn’t say to what degree you’re claiming to have a useful direction in steering society away from creating takeover-capable AI (or AGI at all). And I didn’t really understand that was the goal either until reading your response to the other comment. So I recommend revising that summary with that in mind—that makes me far more interested.
But I don’t have time to read if the only claim is “I thought about it” not “I’ve got some useful conclusions or directions”. I need to stay focused on my primary job, technical alignment, and many here will similarly not devote time to a long post with no clear claim of usefulness.
Sorry to be a debbie downer! Writing is hard, and there’s a fierce competition for attention here!
I appreciate the continued engagement and trust that you’re helping make this post, and even more, my writing in general more worthwhile for reading as well as producing.
I plugged in what seemed most substantial from my comment below and added a few candid sentences addressing your specifying question.
Since this post is intended to be more meta-level and to set up context for subsequent work, I can’t make promises for this containing object-level “useful conclusions or directions”—is anything that doesn’t check that box just “thinking about it” and therefore undeserving of attention? (Not even as much as going through the outline?)
I’m curious about your honest opinion, I may differ on it but still think it’s best to make it explicit.