More people should write basic AI safety explainers
Key takeaway
I think people continue to underrate the value of writing the clearest, most basic, simplest possible case for important parts of AI safety.
Why it's on PDOOM
PDOOM selected this story as relevant to risk analysis.
From LessWrong AI
I think people continue to underrate the value of writing the clearest, most basic, simplest possible case for important parts of AI safety. For example, before I wrote my own explainer for the simplest possible case for AI doom, I noticed that all existing explainers, of which there aren't many, had multiple of the six problems below: They have too many extraneous detailsThey appeal to overly complex analogiesThey seem to spend much of their time responding to insider debates and come across as
By Linch