Adam Scholl

Sep 6, 2024 | lesswrong.com | Adam Scholl

Personally, I suspect the alignment problem is hard. But even if it turns out to be easy, survival may still require getting at least the absolute basics right; currently, I think we're mostly failing even at that. Early discussion of AI risk often focused on debating the viability of various elaborate safety schemes humanity might someday devise—designing AI systems to be more like “tools” than “agents,” for example, or as purely question-answering oracles locked within some kryptonite-style box.

May 30, 2024 | lesswrong.com | Adam Scholl

Since at least 2017, OpenAI has asked departing employees to sign offboarding agreements which legally bind them to permanently—that is, for the rest of their lives—refrain from criticizing OpenAI, or from otherwise taking any actions which might damage its finances or reputation. If they refused to sign, OpenAI threatened to take back (or make unsellable) all of their already-vested equity—a huge portion of their overall compensation, which often amounted to millions of dollars.

Apr 1, 2024 | lesswrong.com | Adam Scholl

At the Omnicide Machine Manufacturing Corporation, we work tirelessly to ensure an omnicide-free future. That’s why we’re excited to announce our Responsible Increase Policy (RIP)—our internal protocol for managing any risks that arise as we create increasingly omnicidal machines.

Nov 1, 2023 | lesswrong.com | Matthew Barnett |Adam Scholl |Daniel Kokotajlo |Ege Erdil

A common theme implicit in many AI risk stories has been that broader society will either fail to anticipate the risks of AI until it is too late, or do little to address those risks in a serious manner. In my opinion, there are now clear signs that this assumption is false, and that society will address AI with something approaching both the attention and diligence it deserves. For example, one clear sign is Joe Biden's recent executive order on AI safety.

Aug 7, 2023 | lesswrong.com | Mo Putera |Adam Scholl |Matt Goldenberg |Niclas Kupper

I've been workshopping a new rationality training paradigm. (By "rationality training paradigm", I mean an approach to learning/teaching the skill of "noticing what cognitive strategies are useful, and getting better at them.")I think the paradigm has promise. I've beta-tested it for a couple weeks. It’s too early to tell if it actually works, but one of my primary goals is to figure out if it works relatively quickly, and give up if it isn’t not delivering.