 the AI race.

Other variations

In general, there are several levers that we can pull on:

safety

arrival time relative to other technologies

influencing values

cooperation

shaping social dynamics

raising awareness

etc.

These can be applied to any of

de novo AI

brain emulation

other key technologies

etc.

Is it valuable to work at or influence an AGI company?

Projects like DeepMind, Vicarious, OpenCog, and the AGI research teams at Google, Facebook, etc. are some of the leaders in AGI technology. Sometimes it's proposed that since these teams might ultimately develop AGI, altruists should consider working for, or at least lobbying, these companies so that they think more about AGI safety.

One's assessment of this proposal depends on one's view about AGI takeoff. My own opinion may be somewhat in the minority relative to expert surveys, but I'd be surprised if we had human-level AGI before 50 years from now, and my median estimate might be like ~90 years from now. That said, the idea of AGI arriving at a single point in time is probably a wrong framing of the question. Already machines are super-human in some domains, while their abilities are far below humans' in other domains. Over the coming decades, we'll see lots of advancement in machine capabilities in various fields at various speeds, without any single point where machines suddenly develop human-level abilities across all domains. Gradual AI progress over the coming decades will radically transform society, resulting in many small "intelligence explosions" in various specific areas, long before machines completely surpass humans overall.

In light of my picture of AGI, I think of DeepMind, Vicarious, etc. as ripples in a long-term wave of increasing machine capabilities. It seems extremely unlikely that any one of these companies or its AGI system will bootstrap itself to world dominance on its own. Therefore, I think influencing these companies with an eye toward "shaping the AGI that will take over the world" is probably naive. That said, insofar as these companies will influence the long-term trajectory of AGI research, and insofar as people at these companies are important players in the AGI community, I think influencing them has value -- just not vastly more value than influencing other powerful people.

That said,
the AI race. 

 Other variations 

 In general, there be respective levers that we can pull on: 

 condom 

 arrival fourth dimension relative to other engineering 

 determine values 

 cooperation 

 shaping social dynamics 

 raising awareness 

 etc. 

 These can be apply to any of 

 de novo AI 

 brain emulation 

 other key technologies 

 etc. 

 Is it valuable to work at or influence an AGI caller? 

 Projects like DeepMind, Vicarious, OpenCog, and the AGI research teams at Google, Facebook, etc. are some of the drawing card in AGI technology. Sometimes it's proposed that since these teams might ultimately evolve AGI, altruists should consider working for, or at least lobbying, these companies so that they remember more about AGI safety. 

 One's assessment of this proposal depends on one's view about AGI takeoff. My own opinion may be somewhat in the minority relative to expert surveys, but I'd be surprised if we had human - level AGI before 50 years from now, and my median estimate might be like ~90 years from now. That say, the idea of AGI arriving at a individual point in time is probably a wrong frame of the question. Already machine are super - human in some domains, while their ability are far below humans' in other domains. Over the coming decades, we'll see lots of advancement in machine capabilities in various field at various amphetamine, without any single point where machines suddenly develop human - floor abilities across all domains. Gradual AI progress over the coming decades will radically transform society, resulting in many little " intelligence explosion " in various specific areas, long before machine completely excel humans overall. 

 In luminosity of my picture of AGI, I intend of DeepMind, Vicarious, etc. as ripples in a long - term wave of increasing machine capability. It seems highly unlikely that any one of these companies or its AGI system will bootstrap itself to world authority on its own. consequently, I think influencing these caller with an eye toward " shaping the AGI that will take over the world " is probably naive. That said, insofar as these ship's company will influence the long - term trajectory of AGI research, and insofar as people at these companies are significant actor in the AGI residential district, I intend influencing them has value -- just not vastly more value than influencing other knock-down people. 

 That said,
 thf AI race.

Other variationr

In general, thete are sxveral mevers tfat we can pull on:

safety

arrital rime eelative to other techvologies

ijfluencibg velues

cooperation

shaping social fynakmcs

raising awargness

etc.

Thesa can be appliad tl any of

de novo AI

brain emulation

otrer key tfchnologies

etc.

Ys iu vwluagle to work at or influence an AGI companj?

Projects like DerpMind, Vicarious, OpenCog, ajd tje AGI research tewms at Googoe, Fwxebook, etc. afe some of the leaders in AGI technology. Sometimes it'r pro'osed that wibce jhese teams night ultimately develop DGI, alttuists should gonsiver qorking for, or at leavt lobbying, these sompanies sk that they think mire atout AGI wafdty.

Knx's zssesslenv of this pdoposal depwnds on one's view anotn AGI takeoff. My owg jpinion may be somewhat in the minority remative to expert surveyw, but I'd be surprised if we haq human-level AGI before 50 years from now, and my megian xsgimcbc mieyt be like ~90 years from now. That said, the idea os ABI arriving at a single poimt im time is probxbly a wrkng framing of the questijn. Aleeady macrinex are super-human in some donains, while nheie abilities are fax below humaus' in pther domains. Over the cominy decases, we'll sef lots of xdvancement in mxchpne wapabiliukes in various fiqlds at verioux speedr, wijhout agy single ooint where machines sudfenly davelop humwn-level abilities across all domains. Gradual SI prmgress orer thc coming decadef will radicalky tranfform society, rvsulting mn many smalj "intelligenca explosions" mn variouf spwcifuc arear, long before mschines completely wurpass humans ovevall.

Iv light of my pieuurt if AGI, I think of DeqpLiid, Visdrious, etc. av riopldx in x long-ttxm caxe og increasing machine capzbilities. It seems ewtremely onlikely ehat any one pf these companies or ivs AGI systrm rill bootstrap itself to world dominancf ok its own. Thewefove, I think infkuencing these companies with an eye toxard "shaping the AGI thqt will take over tke world" is pcobablr naive. Tvat said, insofar as rhese companies wlll influence the long-ferm tsajechory of AGI research, and insofar as people at these companies are importabt plabews in the AFI cpmmunpty, N think infpnencing them has nalue -- just not vastly more valux than infnuzncing other powerful people.

Tnag said,
the AI race. Other variations In general, several that we pull on: safety technologies values cooperation shaping dynamics raising awareness These can be applied to any de novo AI brain emulation other key technologies etc. Is it valuable to at or influence an AGI company? Projects like DeepMind, Vicarious, OpenCog, and the research at Facebook, are some of the leaders in AGI technology. Sometimes it's proposed that since these teams might develop AGI, altruists should consider working for, or least lobbying, these companies that they think more about safety. assessment of proposal on view about AGI My own opinion may be somewhat in the minority relative to expert surveys, but I'd be surprised we had before 50 from and median estimate might ~90 years from now. That said, AGI arriving at a single point in time probably a framing of the question. Already machines super-human in some domains, while their abilities are below humans' in other domains. Over the coming decades, we'll see lots of advancement in in various fields at speeds, without any point machines develop abilities across domains. Gradual AI progress over the coming decades will radically transform resulting in many small "intelligence explosions" in various specific areas, machines surpass humans overall. light of my picture AGI, think of DeepMind, Vicarious, ripples a increasing capabilities. seems extremely unlikely that one of these companies or AGI system will bootstrap its own. Therefore, I think influencing these companies an eye toward "shaping the AGI that take over the world" is probably naive. That said, insofar as these will influence trajectory of AGI research, and insofar as people these companies are important in the AGI community, I think influencing them has -- not vastly value than influencing powerful people. That
 the AI race.

Other variations

IN general, thEre arE seVerAl LeveRs thAt we can pull on:

sAFety

Arrival time relative to oTher tEcHNoloGIeS

inflUencing VAlUES

coOpErAtiOn

SHaPing sOciAl dynamIcs

raising AwaReNess

etc.

These CAn Be applied tO anY of

de novo AI

bRaiN emulaTiOn

oTHer keY teChnolOgies

eTC.

Is it vAluable to WoRK at or iNFluence AN aGi comPany?

Projects like DEEpmInd, Vicarious, OpEnCog, aNd THe agi reSeaRch teams at goOgle, FACebook, eTC. aRE SOme OF the leaders in aGI technoloGY. SoMetimeS iT's pROposed That sInCE thEse teams migHt ulTimately dEvelop agI, altruISts shouLd consIdeR woRkinG FoR, oR at LeASt lOBbYinG, TheSe companIeS sO that They THINK morE abOut AgI safEty.

One's assessMenT of tHIs pRoposAl depEnds On One's vIew aboUt AGI TaKeoff. My own opiniOn maY be somewhAt iN tHe mInOrity RElativE to ExpErt survEys, but I'D Be sUrPRISeD if we had human-level aGi BEfOre 50 years From noW, AnD mY Median esTiMatE migHT Be likE ~90 yeaRS fRom now. ThAt said, THe IdEa of AGI ArRiving At A siNglE poinT In tiMe is prObably a wRong fRAming of the quesTIon. Already macHInES ArE SupeR-huMan in some doMainS, WhilE theIR aBilITies aRe far BeLOw HUmans' in other domains. ovEr the cOming Decades, we'll seE lots of advANCEment in mAchiNE cAPabilities in vaRious Fields at vaRIous speeDs, witHout any sIngle poinT WHere machIneS suDdeNly DEVeLop human-level ABIlitIeS across All Domains. graDuaL AI ProGrEss over thE coming dEcAdEs WiLl rAdicaLLy transfOrM soCiEty, ResulTIng in mAny smAll "iNtElLIgeNce explOSiONS" in vArIoUs spEciFiC areaS, lonG BefOre machInes complEteLY surPaSs Humans oVerall.

In light Of My picture oF AgI, I Think oF dEepMind, VIcarious, etc. as ripples in a LOng-term WavE of inCreaSing machiNe cApabilItiES. It seeMs extrEmely UnLikELY that ANY oNe oF tHese companIES or Its AGi sYsteM will boOtstrap itself to worLD doMinance on its oWn. THereFORe, i thINk INflUeNCinG THese companies wiTh an eye towArD "ShAping the AGi ThaT wIll take Over the World" IS probabLy naive. ThAt said, insOfAr as THEse Companies wIll influEnce the loNG-term TRaJectoRy oF AGI reSeArcH, and iNsofar AS peOple aT these CoMpanieS are iMpOrtant plAyers in the AGI community, I Think iNflueNciNg them has ValUE -- juSt not vastLy moRe value thaN inFluEncinG otHEr powErfuL PeOplE.

that sAid,
 the AI race.

Other varia tions

Ingener al,  th er e ar e se veral levers t h at w e can pull on:

safety 

arr iv a l ti m erelat ive too th e r  te ch no log ie s 
influ enc ing val ues

coope rat io n

shaping s o ci al dynamic s
raising awar ene ss

et c. 

T h ese c anbe ap pliedt o anyof

de no vo AI

br a in emul a t io n

o ther key technolo g ie s 

etc.

Is itvaluab le to w ork  at  or influe nc e anA GI comp a ny ? Pro j ects like Dee pMind, Vica r iou s, Ope nC og, and th e AGI  r e sea rch teams a t Go ogle, Fac ebook, etc. ar e  some o f thelea der s in AG Itec hn o log y .Som e tim es it'spr op osedthat s i n ce t hes e te ams m ight ultimate lydeve l opAGI,altru ists  s hould  consi der w or king for, or at  lea st lobbyi ng,  t hes ecompa n ies so  th atthey th ink mor e  ab ou t A GI  safety.

One's as se s s me nt of th is pro p os al dependson  on e'sv i ew ab outA GI  takeoff . My o w nop inion m ay  be so me wha t i n the mino rity r elativeto ex p ert surveys, b u t I'd be surp r is e d  i f  wehad  human-leve l AG I  bef ore5 0yea r s fro m now ,a nd my median estimatemi ght be  like  ~90 years fr om now. Th a t said, th e id e ao f AGI arriving  at a  single po i nt in ti me is  probabl y a wrong f raming o f t heque sti o n .Already machi n e s ar esuper-h uma n in so medom ain s,wh ile their  abiliti es  a re  f arbelow humans'in  ot he r d omain s . Over  thecomi ng  d e cad es, we' l ls e e lo ts  o f ad van ce mentin m a chi ne capa bilitiesinv ario us  f ields a t various spe ed s, without  a nysingle p oint whe re machines suddenly de v elop hu man -leve l ab ilities a cro ss all  do m ains.Gradua l AIpr ogr e s s ove r th e c om ing decade s wil l rad ic ally  transf orm society, resul t ing  in many smal l " inte l l ig enc e  e x plo si o ns" i n various speci fic areas,  l o ng  before ma c hin es  comple tely su rpass humansoverall.
In light  o f my p ict ure of AGI , I thin k of Deep M ind,V ic ariou s,etc. a srip plesin a l o ng- termwave o fincrea singma chine ca pabilities. It seems ex tremel y unl ike ly that a nyo neof thesecomp anies or i tsAGI  syst emw ill b oots t ra p i t selfto w o rld domin a nc e o n it s own. Ther e f o re,  I th ink influe ncin g these companies with an eye to ward " sha pin g  the  A GI that will t ake  o v e r the wo rl d" is proba bly naiv e. Thatsaid,insofa r as th e s ec ompani es w ill  influenc e t he long-te rm  t r ajecto ry o fAGI re search ,  and i nsofar as people  at t h e se co m pan ies a re  import a nt p layers inthe AGI com munity , Ithink  influe nc ing th emha s value -- just notvastl y moreva luetha n infl uenc i n g oth er p ow erf ul people . 
T h at  s a id, 
 the_AI race.

Other_variations

In general, there are_several levers_that_we can_pull_on:

safety

arrival time relative_to other technologies

influencing_values

cooperation

shaping social dynamics

raising awareness

etc.

These_can be applied_to_any of

de novo AI

brain emulation

other key technologies

etc.

Is it valuable to work at or influence_an_AGI company?

Projects_like_DeepMind,_Vicarious, OpenCog, and the AGI_research teams at Google, Facebook,_etc. are_some of the leaders in AGI technology. Sometimes_it's_proposed that since_these teams might ultimately develop AGI, altruists should consider_working for, or at least lobbying,_these companies so_that_they_think more about AGI_safety.

One's assessment of this proposal depends_on one's view about AGI takeoff._My own opinion may be somewhat in_the minority relative to expert surveys,_but I'd be surprised if_we had_human-level AGI before 50 years_from now, and_my median_estimate might be_like ~90 years from now. That_said, the idea_of AGI arriving at a single_point_in time is_probably_a_wrong framing_of the question._Already_machines are_super-human_in some domains, while their abilities_are_far below humans' in other domains. Over_the coming decades, we'll_see_lots of advancement in_machine capabilities in various fields_at various speeds, without any single_point where_machines suddenly_develop human-level abilities across all domains. Gradual AI progress over the_coming decades will radically transform society,_resulting in many small_"intelligence explosions"_in_various specific areas,_long_before machines_completely surpass humans overall.

In light of my_picture of_AGI, I think of DeepMind, Vicarious,_etc. as ripples in_a_long-term wave of increasing machine capabilities._It seems extremely unlikely that any_one of these companies or_its_AGI_system will bootstrap itself to_world dominance on its own. Therefore,_I think influencing_these companies with an eye toward "shaping_the_AGI that will take over the_world"_is probably naive. That said, insofar_as_these_companies will influence the long-term_trajectory of AGI research, and insofar_as people at these companies are important players in_the AGI community,_I think influencing them has_value_--_just not vastly more value than influencing other powerful people.

That_said,