4 ms·

All the computer science questions are about ML. Are there no impactful computer science problems left outside of ML? I also get the impression that the author

All the computer science questions are about ML. Are there no impactful computer science problems left outside of ML? I also get the impression that the author did not really understand the ML/AI research questions. Otherwise, they would have probably chose more general/high-level questions.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> Are there no impactful computer science problems left outside of ML? Well, do Arden Koehler or Howie Lempel have 80,000 hours of CS Research experience? It looks like they have 80K hours of experience thinking about the best way to spend 80K hours. Woops. On the contrary, the massive influx of applied research driven by deep learning hype means there's probably a lot more high-impact stuff outside of ML than inside of ML. Quantum computing, bullet-proof crypto implementations, safety engineering for robots, and even hardening the electric grid/key compute infra against solar flares all seem much more important. Also much less "sexy". ...and even most of the AI/ML problems are scraped from a few papers from corporate AI labs with the best PR skills, with an eye toward AGI risk. But 1) AGI risk is massively overblown and 2) trying to solve those problems in general has a "silver bullet" vibe. All of the solutions to "AI Safety" questions are going to boil down to "do good software engineering", which is often more about processes and org incentives than technology or science. A really good automated HiL testing setup is going to be a lot more important than "preventing reward hacking". If you don't believe me, go ask anyone who's actually built a robot. So, I think maybe "AI Safety/Robustness broadly construed" could be one or two entries in a list of important problems in CS. But certainly not half the list as they are here. TBH, one of the highest impact problems in CS is convincing young PhDs to not waste their time applying deep learning to every god damn thing regardless of whether it's the right tool for the job.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
schuetze 6y ago
As a psychologist/cognitive scientist (my identity depends on my mood/day), I was equally disappointed with the sections on psychology and neuroscience. Some of the questions have been answered (at least partially, such as the importance of domain knowledge versus "processing power"). Overall, it was a very odd look into a discipline that I am familiar with, which leads me to think that the ideas are not very promising for any of the fields I don't have expertise in.
ForHackernews 6y ago
The "effective altruism" movement (of which 80,000 Hours is a part) has long been preoccupied with preventing a malevolent, superintelligent AI from killing or enslaving humanity (they call this fostering "friendly AI"). Their position is that this is a low-probability but extremely severe risk that few people are working on preventing. Whether AI is really more dangerous than, say, pandemics or asteroids, is left as an exercise for the reader.
- 80386 6y ago
  AI safety isn't an EA "preoccupation"; it's just weird enough and noticeable enough that it's easy to mistake existence and prevalence. It's also not even their weirdest position. The first question on their list is about the 'problem' of wild animal suffering - and I've personally seen EAs argue that, because some animals are carnivorous, nature should be destroyed. That's not even the weirdest position EAs take. Look up Brian Tomasik. Specifically, his paper about the possibility that electrons might suffer. Concern about superhuman AI is one thing; bullet-biting utilitarianism is another entirely. (This isn't the only place where their philosophical framework is stuck in the British Empire; they also tend to take a teleological view of history and moral development, and believe that their views are the self-evident progression of ethical development that every culture and civilization will come to eventually. They may not be as bad about this now as they used to be - there are questions about China now - but I don't think they're quite to the point of coming to terms with cultural contingency yet.)
  - Noos 6y ago
    It's a preoccupation because EA is mostly a rationalist thing, and Elizier Yudlowsky has had tremendous influence on that movement by being involved with Less Wrong. His views on AI have kind of become a mainstream position among them. 80k hours is more a cultural snapshot of the rationalist movement than anything.
dbtc 6y ago
I vote for mass "social media" that raise rather than lower collective consciousness and individual quality of life.

throwawaygh 6y ago

> Are there no impactful computer science problems left outside of ML? Well, do Arden Koehler or Howie Lempel have 80,000 hours of CS Research experience? It looks like they have 80K hours of experience thinking about the best way to spend 80K hours. Woops. On the contrary, the massive influx of applied research driven by deep learning hype means there's probably a lot more high-impact stuff outside of ML than inside of ML. Quantum computing, bullet-proof crypto implementations, safety engineering for robots, and even hardening the electric grid/key compute infra against solar flares all seem much more important. Also much less "sexy". ...and even most of the AI/ML problems are scraped from a few papers from corporate AI labs with the best PR skills, with an eye toward AGI risk. But 1) AGI risk is massively overblown and 2) trying to solve those problems in general has a "silver bullet" vibe. All of the solutions to "AI Safety" questions are going to boil down to "do good software engineering", which is often more about processes and org incentives than technology or science. A really good automated HiL testing setup is going to be a lot more important than "preventing reward hacking". If you don't believe me, go ask anyone who's actually built a robot. So, I think maybe "AI Safety/Robustness broadly construed" could be one or two entries in a list of important problems in CS. But certainly not half the list as they are here. TBH, one of the highest impact problems in CS is convincing young PhDs to not waste their time applying deep learning to every god damn thing regardless of whether it's the right tool for the job.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

schuetze 6y ago

As a psychologist/cognitive scientist (my identity depends on my mood/day), I was equally disappointed with the sections on psychology and neuroscience. Some of the questions have been answered (at least partially, such as the importance of domain knowledge versus "processing power"). Overall, it was a very odd look into a discipline that I am familiar with, which leads me to think that the ideas are not very promising for any of the fields I don't have expertise in.

ForHackernews 6y ago

The "effective altruism" movement (of which 80,000 Hours is a part) has long been preoccupied with preventing a malevolent, superintelligent AI from killing or enslaving humanity (they call this fostering "friendly AI"). Their position is that this is a low-probability but extremely severe risk that few people are working on preventing. Whether AI is really more dangerous than, say, pandemics or asteroids, is left as an exercise for the reader.

80386 6y ago
AI safety isn't an EA "preoccupation"; it's just weird enough and noticeable enough that it's easy to mistake existence and prevalence. It's also not even their weirdest position. The first question on their list is about the 'problem' of wild animal suffering - and I've personally seen EAs argue that, because some animals are carnivorous, nature should be destroyed. That's not even the weirdest position EAs take. Look up Brian Tomasik. Specifically, his paper about the possibility that electrons might suffer. Concern about superhuman AI is one thing; bullet-biting utilitarianism is another entirely. (This isn't the only place where their philosophical framework is stuck in the British Empire; they also tend to take a teleological view of history and moral development, and believe that their views are the self-evident progression of ethical development that every culture and civilization will come to eventually. They may not be as bad about this now as they used to be - there are questions about China now - but I don't think they're quite to the point of coming to terms with cultural contingency yet.)
- Noos 6y ago
  It's a preoccupation because EA is mostly a rationalist thing, and Elizier Yudlowsky has had tremendous influence on that movement by being involved with Less Wrong. His views on AI have kind of become a mainstream position among them. 80k hours is more a cultural snapshot of the rationalist movement than anything.

dbtc 6y ago

I vote for mass "social media" that raise rather than lower collective consciousness and individual quality of life.