Humanity's ability to know, reason, judge, and act well is the foundation of science, democracy, crisis response, & management of AI itself. AI poses serious risks to that foundation. New paper on epistemic risks by 30 experts calls for attention and proposes solutions. Link in thread.
Fusion power is gonna go a lot like AI. Empty promises for decades, then suddenly here faster than anyone can adjust to.
Me: I’m working on AI and human conflict BigLab employee: Cool, like multi-agent games? Me: No, like human conflict BigLab: Cool, so like simulating people’s responses? Me: no, like actual human field experiments 🤷♂️
What could it mean for an AI to be "politically neutral”? And can we measure it? New paper + dataset. We propose a definition that applies to any type of conflict on any topic: a neutral response should maximize approval on both sides of an issue, while keeping that approval balanced. 1/🧵
The AI models of today are the worst they will ever be. And yet, pretty much every "AI will never..." claim has now been shattered. I don't understand people who still bet against AI. How much more evidence do you need that these machines are going to be smarter than us in every way?
Seeing a flurry of evals and startups promising to test the mental health effects of AI. Literally all of them test what the model says in various conditions... none of them measure actual outcomes on actual people. A big gap, fixable with privacy-preserving experiments.
Is this a good logo for the GreenEarth feed? It's a healthier, user-controllable, open-source, LLM-powered, transparent feed we're building -- now in alpha testing. Try it? Tell us what you think! bsky.app/profile/did:...
I want to make sure AI doesn't incite human conflict. It's sometimes hard to explain what I do, but that's the core of it -- it won't happen automatically. And we're making progress! Both theoretically, and in field experiments that test how AI alters human relationships.
I have never expressed a p(doom), and I think @randomwalker.bsky.social is basically right that we have little basis for quantitative estimates of AI-induced catastrophic risk. OTH, no one has presented a knock-down argument that *any* of the various AI disaster scenarios are impossible.
Writing code and doing related research tasks with Fable has caused me to move up my estimated date for recursive self-improvement (RSI), which is a more precisely defined term than the nebulous "AGI." Anyway, I think we'll see intelligent machines self-improving by late next year.
