jsteinhardt

jsteinhardt's Comments

Ryan Carey on how to transition from being a software engineer to a research engineer at an AI safety team

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I now see where the list comes from, although I personally am bearish on this type of weighting. For one, it ignores many people who are motivated to make AI beneficial for society but don't happen to frequent certain web forums or communities. Secondly, in my opinion it underrates the benefit of extremely competent peers and overrates the benefit of like-minded peers.

While it's hard to give generic advice, I would advocate for going to the school that is best at the research topic one is interested in pursuing, or where there is otherwise a good fit with a strong PI (though basing on a single PI rather than one's top-2/top-3 can sometimes backfire). If one's interests are not developed enough to have a good sense of topic or PI then I would go with general strength of program.

Ryan Carey on how to transition from being a software engineer to a research engineer at an AI safety team

I'm not sure what the metric for the "good schools" list is but the ranking seemed off to me. Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, CMU, and UW are generally considered the top CS (and ML) schools. Toronto is also top-10 in CS and particularly strong in ML. All of these rankings are of course a bit silly but I still find it hard to justify the given list unless being located in the UK is somehow considered a large bonus.

Ryan Carey on how to transition from being a software engineer to a research engineer at an AI safety team

I intended the document to be broader than a research agenda. For instance I describe many topics that I'm not personally excited about but that other people are and where the excitement seems defensible. I also go into a lot of detail on the reasons that people are interested in different directions. It's not a literature review in the sense that the references are far from exhaustive but I personally don't know of any better resource for learning about what's going on in the field. Of course as the author I'm biased.

The EA Community and Long-Term Future Funds Lack Transparency and Accountability

Given that Nick has a PhD in Philosophy, and that OpenPhil has funded a large amount of academic research, this explanation seems unlikely.

Disclosure: I am working at OpenPhil over the summer. (I don't have any particular private information, both of the above facts are publicly available.)

EDIT: I don't intend to make any statement about whether EA as a whole has an anti-academic bias, just that this particular situation seems unlikely to reflect that.

Comparative advantage in the talent market

If we think of the community as needing one ops person and one research person, the marginal value in each area drops to zero once that role is filled.

Yes, but these effects only show up when the number of jobs is small. In particular: If there are already 99 ops people and we are looking at having 99 vs. 100 ops people, the marginal value isn't going to drop to zero. Going from 99 to 100 ops people means that mission-critical ops tasks will be done slightly better, and that some non-critical tasks will get done that wouldn't have otherwise. Going from 100 to 101 will have a similar effect.

In contrast, in the traditional comparative advantage setting, there remain gains-from-coordination/gains-from-trade even when the total pool of jobs/goods is quite large.

The fact that gains-from-coordination only show up in the small-N regime here, whereas they show up even in the large-N regime traditionally, seems like a crucial difference that makes it inappropriate to apply standard intuition about comparative advantage in the present setting.

If we want to analyze this more from first principles, we could pick one of the standard justifications for considering comparative advantage and I could try to show why it breaks down here. The one I'm most familiar with is the one by David Ricardo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Ricardo's_example).

Comparative advantage in the talent market

I'm worried that you're mis-applying the concept of comparative advantage here. In particular, if agents A and B both have the same values and are pursuing altruistic ends, comparative advantage should not play a role---both agents should just do whatever they have an absolute advantage at (taking into account marginal effects, but in a large population this should often not matter).

For example: suppose that EA has a "shortage of operations people" but person A determines that they would have higher impact doing direct research rather than doing ops. Then in fact the best thing is for person A to work on direct research, even if there are already many other people doing research and few people doing ops. (Of course, person A could be mistaken about which choice has higher impact, but that is different from the trade considerations that comparative advantage is based on.)

I agree with the heuristic "if a type of work seems to have few people working on it, all else equal you should update towards that work being more neglected and hence higher impact" but the justification for that again doesn't require any considerations of trading with other people . In general, if A and B can trade in a mutually beneficial way, then either A and B have different values or one of them was making a mistake.

Talent gaps from the perspective of a talent limited organization.

FWIW, 50k seems really low to me (but I live in the U.S. in a major city, so maybe it's different elsewhere?). Specifically, I would be hesitant to take a job at that salary, if for no other reason than I thought that the organization was either dramatically undervaluing my skills, or so cash-constrained that I would be pretty unsure if they would exist in a couple years.

A rough comparison: if I were doing a commissioned project for a non-profit that I felt was well-run and value-aligned, my rate would be in the vicinity of $50USD/hour. I'd currently be willing to go down to $25USD/hour for a project that is something I basically would have done anyways. Once I get my PhD I think my going rates would be higher, and for a senior-level position I would probably expect more than either of these numbers, unless it was a small start-up-y organization that I felt was one of the most promising organizations in existence.

EDIT: So that people don't have to convert to per-year salaries in their heads, the above numbers if annualized would be $100k USD/year and $50k USD/year.

My current thoughts on MIRI's "highly reliable agent design" work

(Speaking for myself, not OpenPhil, who I wouldn't be able to speak for anyways.)

For what it's worth, I'm pretty critical of deep learning, which is the approach OpenAI wants to take, and still think the grant to OpenAI was a pretty good idea; and I can't really think of anyone more familiar with MIRI's work than Paul who isn't already at MIRI (note that Paul started out pursuing MIRI's approach and shifted in an ML direction over time).

That being said, I agree that the public write-up on the OpenAI grant doesn't reflect that well on OpenPhil, and it seems correct for people like you to demand better moving forward (although I'm not sure that adding HRAD researchers as TAs is the solution; also note that OPP does consult regularly with MIRI staff, though I don't know if they did for the OpenAI grant).

My current thoughts on MIRI's "highly reliable agent design" work

I think the argument along these lines that I'm most sympathetic to is that Paul's agenda fits more into the paradigm of typical ML research, and so is more likely to fail for reasons that are in many people's collective blind spot (because we're all blinded by the same paradigm).

My current thoughts on MIRI's "highly reliable agent design" work

This doesn't match my experience of why I find Paul's justifications easier to understand. In particular, I've been following MIRI since 2011, and my experience has been that I didn't find MIRI's arguments (about specific research directions) convincing in 2011*, and since then have had a lot of people try to convince me from a lot of different angles. I think pretty much all of the objections I have are ones I generated myself, or would have generated myself. Although, the one major objection I didn't generate myself is the one that I feel most applies to Paul's agenda.

( * There was a brief period shortly after reading the sequences that I found them extremely convincing, but I think I was much more credulous then than I am now. )

Load More