They have produced a bunch of technical reports (linked to in a sibling comment), but so far only one of them has been published in a peer-reviewed venue (https

They have produced a bunch of technical reports (linked to in a sibling comment), but so far only one of them has been published in a peer-reviewed venue (https://intelligence.org/files/ProgramEquilibrium.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/ProgramEquilibrium.pdf), so I think a lot of people still doubt whether they are being productive at all. (An ordinary research lab employing that many people could clearly produce more papers; but an ordinary lab is not trying to bootstrap a new field from scratch). On the other hand, the original post we are commenting on specifically held up AIXI as an example of the kind of thing they are trying to create, so if you don't like that, then you probably will never like MIRI's research no matter how successful they are. :) As for engaging the AI community, the most high-profile example I know of is that Stuart Russell is apparently now concerned about the MIRI-style "value alignment problem" (https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150421-concerns-of-an-artificial-intelligence-pioneer/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150421-concerns-of-an-artif...) and has some DARPA grant to work on it.