>... the MIRI people are thinking about AI, not working on it. While they're not building AGI, I would argue that their thinking constitutes not only work, but

>... the MIRI people are thinking about AI, not working on it. While they're not building AGI, I would argue that their thinking constitutes not only work, but progress. MIRI is attempting to flesh out the murky, abstract nature of the control problem and translate it into something more concrete, specifically mathematical models that may one day evolve into provably-sound foundations for future work. >Once it does, the field (in theory) doesn't really exist anymore really. So there can only be a research into it before it is complete. It is possible and perhaps even likely that the first AGI we create will be contained, but otherwise unsatisfactory to release or utilize without further iteration and study of the design. After all, it's probably a bad idea (in most cases) to leverage its superhuman intelligence if you believe the thing is malicious or otherwise has motives that do not align with human interests. That said, I cannot imagine research proceeding in any sort of public fashion once that threshold has been passed, so in a way you're likely correct. >Arguing about safety is totally a worthless effort, and harmful in my opinion, when we have no idea what the foundations are or the paths to it. While I agree regulation is premature, prominent people like Musk advocating for AGI safety, if only in a general sense, strikes me as a positive thing due to the cultural effects. Prior to Musk, Hawking, et al., if you mentioned the prospect of unsafe AI, you'd be laughed at in all but the most niche communities. The notion was clearly just something confined to the realm of science fiction movies. Nothing with similarly catastrophic ramifications could ever happen in real life, or otherwise such things were indefinitely far off in the future. I'm not advocating fear mongering, just saying that when AGI actually does become a serious safety concern, it's better to have the cultural climate already primed and receptive to addressing the problem. On the other hand, if the safety angle is pushed too hard now, it may backfire and have the opposite effect later, and that would be unfortunate. >There are no rules stating that a project has to be turnkey to realize a goal. No, but in practice there are political and financial constraints that can sometimes have a similar effect. If a project isn't properly aligned with those constraints, then it becomes more likely to fail. The longer and more expensive a project is, the harder it is to justify or continue to justify in such climates.