Naturally this paper is several years old. But it still seems like the most prominent work on this, with 61 citations etc.
My own take: we need more work in this area… perhaps follow-up work doing a similar survey, taking sample selection and question design more seriously.
I hope we can identify & evaluate such work in a timely fashion.
E.g., there is some overlap with
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5021463
which “focuses on measures to mitigate systemic risks associated with general-purpose AI models, rather than addressing the AGI scenario considered in this paper”.
I’m eager to hear other suggestions for relevant work to consider and evaluate.
I agree but I would not frame this as review in terms of thumbs up/thumbs down—we can do better. In economics, for example, most people post their research in a fairly polished format online long before it makes it through the journal peer-review process. People can host their work in a variety of interesting and useful formats that actually go beyond what you can put in a frozen PDF of course.
Then we can have continuous public evaluation of this work, both crowdsourced and managed—at unjournal.org we do the latter, we pay experts to write detailed reports explaining the strengths, weaknesses, credibility, and usefulness of the research, and to give a benchmarked quantitative rating of this both overall and across a range of categories, as well as claim assessment. You can see our output at unjournal.pubpub.org and on our ratings dashboard—https://unjournal.shinyapps.io/uj-dashboard/
Authors can continue to improve the research and extend it in the same place and then seek an updated evaluation and rating .