This is so cool. A few ideas which I’m not fit to write:
Next generation Geothermal https://elidourado.com/blog/geothermal/
Policy and technological advancements to increase residential construction in the U.K.
Research on the best health system models
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
Oscillating water column technology (wave energy)
Digitisation and simplification of government services/law (a la Estonia and Próspera)
Drug regulation reciprocity
I will write one on biorisk, maybe "curing all coronaviruses" or similar. I suggest many are better qualified than me to do this.
Someone better placed than me is doing this.
I will write one on AI safety unless someone better qualified does. Many people are. I will run it by AI safety folks before submitting.
Someone better placed than me is doing this.
I am gonna write one on forecasting. Please get in touch if you'd like to support/collaborate.
This is really important and underrated.
Bio-security and AI safety are mythologies being generated by the science clergy. Intellectual elites of various types insist on assuming that they will be in control of such technologies, and thus what they decide at their conferences and in their papers etc matters. Such assumptions are well intended self serving delusions.
It's the simplest thing. Please explain how you will impose your bio-security theories upon the North Korean regime, who has nuclear weapons, and soon will be able to erase America at the push of a button.
Before you go racing off in to the 21st century, please slow down, and try to learn the lessons provided by the 20th century. It's not complicated. Existential scale technologies, once developed, become available to all. And vast swaths of this planet are ruled by ruthless people who have exactly no interest in your well intended noble plans.
Ok, given that down voters are either too lazy or fearful to make their case, I guess that until we hear from them I'll have to guess what their objection is, and try to respond to that guess.
My claim is that well meaning intellectual elites, such as those assembled here, do not have the power to control how existential scale technologies such as genetic engineering and AI will be developed. This claims stands until such time as my fellow members are willing to publicly meet and defeat it.
If that claim is true, then bio-security and AI safety are an illusion.
Whether this illusion is being sold deliberately, or is instead a product of a sincere misunderstanding is a fair question I'm willing to consider.
The options I see at the moment are:
Naturally, neither of these theories are going to be popular with the science clergy. I'm sorry about that, but intellectual inquiry involves following the trail of evidence where ever it leads to the best of one's ability.
So down voters, until you come out of hiding and engage, the microphone is mine and mine alone, and this is what will be going out over the loudspeakers.
ARIA (the new UK attempt to set up something like DARPA, but not focused on natsec applications) is looking for suggested topics on roundtables they could convene. They want people to send in quick proposals: https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=BXCsy8EC60O0l-ZJLRst2P1Ashiv-H1KnK6sTYSZJTNUN1JXWUVTWUlIUUlRUEU2RkVZT05DSTVJMi4u
Seems pretty plausible that biosecurity and AI safety could get funding from AIRA, plausibly forecasting work as well. For co-ordination purposes comment on this post if you've submitted an EA aligned proposal and what it was for.
I may write one on knowledge management within the civil service
Interested in hear what you would write on this