Citation-network analysis would be a natural complement here. 200 papers is a narrow base, and the corpus is built on an implicit selection criterion of “what people on LW/CHAI/Hendrycks/Barak treat as canon,” that’s worth stating explicitly, since it shapes the conclusions. “Concrete Problems in AI Safety,” one of the included papers alone has ~5,000 citing papers on Google Scholar; even after aggressive filtering for actual safety relevance, that’s a very different (and much larger) population than the curated canon. I’m curious to see what the wider network would look like.
Citation-network analysis would be a natural complement here. 200 papers is a narrow base, and the corpus is built on an implicit selection criterion of “what people on LW/CHAI/Hendrycks/Barak treat as canon,” that’s worth stating explicitly, since it shapes the conclusions. “Concrete Problems in AI Safety,” one of the included papers alone has ~5,000 citing papers on Google Scholar; even after aggressive filtering for actual safety relevance, that’s a very different (and much larger) population than the curated canon. I’m curious to see what the wider network would look like.