Page StatusContent
Edited 7 weeks ago2.2k words1 backlinks
62
QualityGoodQuality: 62/100Human-assigned rating of overall page quality, considering depth, accuracy, and completeness.78
ImportanceHighImportance: 78/100How central this topic is to AI safety. Higher scores mean greater relevance to understanding or mitigating AI risk.12
Structure12/15Structure: 12/15Automated score based on measurable content features.Word count2/2Tables3/3Diagrams2/2Internal links2/2Citations0/3Prose ratio2/2Overview section1/125TablesData tables in the page2DiagramsCharts and visual diagrams45Internal LinksLinks to other wiki pages0FootnotesFootnote citations [^N] with sources0External LinksMarkdown links to outside URLs%2%Bullet RatioPercentage of content in bullet lists
Updated quarterlyDue in 6 weeks
Summary
This framework maps beliefs about AI timelines (short/medium/long), alignment difficulty (hard/medium/tractable), and coordination feasibility (feasible/difficult/impossible) to intervention priorities, showing 2-10x differences in optimal resource allocation across worldview clusters. The model identifies that 20-50% of field resources may be wasted through worldview-work mismatches, with specific portfolio recommendations for each worldview cluster.
TODOs4
Complete 'Conceptual Framework' section
Complete 'Quantitative Analysis' section (8 placeholders)
Complete 'Strategic Importance' section
Complete 'Limitations' section (6 placeholders)
Worldview-Intervention Mapping
Model
Worldview-Intervention Mapping
This framework maps beliefs about AI timelines (short/medium/long), alignment difficulty (hard/medium/tractable), and coordination feasibility (feasible/difficult/impossible) to intervention priorities, showing 2-10x differences in optimal resource allocation across worldview clusters. The model identifies that 20-50% of field resources may be wasted through worldview-work mismatches, with specific portfolio recommendations for each worldview cluster.
Model TypeStrategic Framework
FocusWorldview-Action Coherence
Key OutputIntervention priorities given different worldviews
Related
Models
AI Risk Portfolio AnalysisModelAI Risk Portfolio AnalysisQuantitative portfolio framework recommending AI safety resource allocation: 40-70% to misalignment, 15-35% to misuse, 10-25% to structural risks, varying by timeline. Based on 2024 funding analysi...Quality: 64/100AI Development Racing DynamicsRiskAI Development Racing DynamicsRacing dynamics analysis shows competitive pressure has shortened safety evaluation timelines by 40-60% since ChatGPT's launch, with commercial labs reducing safety work from 12 weeks to 4-6 weeks....Quality: 72/100
2.2k words · 1 backlinks
Model
Worldview-Intervention Mapping
This framework maps beliefs about AI timelines (short/medium/long), alignment difficulty (hard/medium/tractable), and coordination feasibility (feasible/difficult/impossible) to intervention priorities, showing 2-10x differences in optimal resource allocation across worldview clusters. The model identifies that 20-50% of field resources may be wasted through worldview-work mismatches, with specific portfolio recommendations for each worldview cluster.
Model TypeStrategic Framework
FocusWorldview-Action Coherence
Key OutputIntervention priorities given different worldviews
Related
Models
AI Risk Portfolio AnalysisModelAI Risk Portfolio AnalysisQuantitative portfolio framework recommending AI safety resource allocation: 40-70% to misalignment, 15-35% to misuse, 10-25% to structural risks, varying by timeline. Based on 2024 funding analysi...Quality: 64/100AI Development Racing DynamicsRiskAI Development Racing DynamicsRacing dynamics analysis shows competitive pressure has shortened safety evaluation timelines by 40-60% since ChatGPT's launch, with commercial labs reducing safety work from 12 weeks to 4-6 weeks....Quality: 72/100
2.2k words · 1 backlinks
Overview
This model maps how beliefs about AI risk create distinct worldview clusters with dramatically different intervention priorities. Different worldviews imply 2-10x differences in optimal resource allocation across pause advocacyApproachPause AdvocacyComprehensive analysis of pause advocacy as an AI safety intervention, estimating 15-40% probability of meaningful policy implementation by 2030 with potential to provide 2-5 years of additional sa...Quality: 91/100, technical research, and governance work.
The model identifies that misalignment between personal beliefs and work focus may waste 20-50% of field resources. AI safety researchers↗📄 paper★★★★☆AnthropicAnthropic's Work on AI SafetyAnthropic conducts research across multiple domains including AI alignment, interpretability, and societal impacts to develop safer and more responsible AI technologies. Their w...alignmentinterpretabilitysafetysoftware-engineering+1Source ↗ hold fundamentally different assumptions about timelines, technical difficulty, and coordination feasibility, but these differences often don't translate to coherent intervention choices.
The framework reveals four major worldview clusters - from "doomer" (short timelines + hard alignment) prioritizing pause advocacy, to "technical optimist" (medium timelines + tractable alignment) emphasizing research investment.
Risk/Impact Assessment
| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severity | High | 2-10x resource allocation differences across worldviews | Immediate |
| Likelihood | Very High | Systematic worldview-work mismatches observed | Ongoing |
| Scope | Field-wide | Affects individual researchers, orgs, and funders | All levels |
| Trend | Worsening | Field growth without explicit worldview coordination | 2024-2027 |
Strategic Question Framework
Given your beliefs about AI risk, which interventions should you prioritize?
The core problem: People work on interventions that don't match their stated beliefs about AI development. This model makes explicit which interventions are most valuable under specific worldview assumptions.
How to Use This Framework
| Step | Action | Tool |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identify worldview | Assess beliefs on timeline/difficulty/coordination |
| 2 | Check priorities | Map beliefs to intervention recommendations |
| 3 | Audit alignment | Compare current work to worldview implications |
| 4 | Adjust strategy | Either change work focus or update worldview |
Core Worldview Dimensions
Three belief dimensions drive most disagreement about intervention priorities:
Loading diagram...
Dimension 1: Timeline Beliefs
| Timeline | Key Beliefs | Strategic Constraints | Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Short (2025-2030) | AGI within 5 years; scaling continues; few obstacles | Little time for institutional change; must work with existing structures | Amodei prediction↗🔗 web★★★★☆AnthropicAmodei predictionprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ of powerful AI by 2026-2027 |
| Medium (2030-2040) | Transformative AI in 10-15 years; surmountable obstacles | Time for institution-building; research can mature | Metaculus consensus↗🔗 web★★★☆☆MetaculusMetaculusMetaculus is an online forecasting platform that allows users to predict future events and trends across areas like AI, biosecurity, and climate change. It provides probabilisti...biosecurityprioritizationworldviewstrategy+1Source ↗ ≈2032 for AGI |
| Long (2040+) | Major obstacles remain; slow takeoff; decades available | Full institutional development possible; fundamental research valuable | MIRI position↗🔗 web★★★☆☆MIRIMIRI positionprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ on alignment difficulty |
Dimension 2: Alignment Difficulty
| Difficulty | Core Assumptions | Research Implications | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hard | Alignment fundamentally unsolved; deception likely; current techniques inadequate | Technical solutions insufficient; need to slow/stop development | Scheming research↗🔗 web★★★★☆AnthropicScheming researchdeceptionprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ shows deception possible |
| Medium | Alignment difficult but tractable; techniques improve with scale | Technical research highly valuable; sustained investment needed | Constitutional AI↗📄 paper★★★★☆AnthropicConstitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI FeedbackAnthropic introduces a novel approach to AI training called Constitutional AI, which uses self-critique and AI feedback to develop safer, more principled AI systems without exte...safetytrainingx-riskirreversibility+1Source ↗ shows promise |
| Tractable | Alignment largely solved; RLHF + interpretability sufficient | Focus on deployment governance; limited technical urgency | OpenAI safety approach↗🔗 web★★★★☆OpenAIOpenAI Safety Updatessafetysocial-engineeringmanipulationdeception+1Source ↗ assumes tractability |
Dimension 3: Coordination Feasibility
| Feasibility | Institutional View | Policy Implications | Historical Precedent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feasible | Treaties possible; labs coordinate; racing avoidable | Invest heavily in coordination mechanisms | Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Montreal Protocol |
| Difficult | Partial coordination; major actors defect; limited cooperation | Focus on willing actors; partial governance | Climate agreements with partial compliance |
| Impossible | Pure competition; no stable equilibria; universal racing | Technical safety only; governance futile | Failed disarmament during arms races |
Four Major Worldview Clusters
Loading diagram...
Cluster 1: "Doomer" Worldview
Beliefs: Short timelines + Hard alignment + Coordination difficult
| Intervention Category | Priority | Expected ROI | Key Advocates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pause/slowdown advocacy | Very High | 10x+ if successful | Eliezer YudkowskyPersonEliezer YudkowskyComprehensive biographical profile of Eliezer Yudkowsky covering his foundational contributions to AI safety (CEV, early problem formulation, agent foundations) and notably pessimistic views (>90% ...Quality: 35/100 |
| Compute governance | Very High | 5-8x via bottlenecks | RAND reports↗🔗 web★★★★☆RAND CorporationRAND reportsprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ |
| Technical safety research | High | 2-4x (low prob, high value) | MIRIOrganizationMachine Intelligence Research InstituteComprehensive organizational history documenting MIRI's trajectory from pioneering AI safety research (2000-2020) to policy advocacy after acknowledging research failure, with detailed financial da...Quality: 50/100 approach |
| International coordination | Medium | 8x if achieved (low prob) | FHI governance work↗🔗 web★★★★☆Future of Humanity Institute**Future of Humanity Institute**talentfield-buildingcareer-transitionsrisk-interactions+1Source ↗ |
| Field-building | Low | 1-2x (insufficient time) | Long-term capacity building |
| Public engagement | Medium | 3-5x via political support | Pause AI movement↗🔗 webPause AI movementprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ |
Coherence Check: If you believe this worldview but work on field-building or long-term institution design, your work may be misaligned with your beliefs.
Cluster 2: "Technical Optimist" Worldview
Beliefs: Medium timelines + Medium difficulty + Coordination possible
| Intervention Category | Priority | Expected ROI | Leading Organizations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical safety research | Very High | 8-12x via direct solutions | AnthropicOrganizationAnthropicComprehensive profile of Anthropic, founded in 2021 by seven former OpenAI researchers (Dario and Daniela Amodei, Chris Olah, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish) with early funding..., RedwoodOrganizationRedwood ResearchA nonprofit AI safety and security research organization founded in 2021, known for pioneering AI Control research, developing causal scrubbing interpretability methods, and conducting landmark ali...Quality: 78/100 |
| InterpretabilitySafety AgendaInterpretabilityMechanistic interpretability has extracted 34M+ interpretable features from Claude 3 Sonnet with 90% automated labeling accuracy and demonstrated 75-85% success in causal validation, though less th...Quality: 66/100 | Very High | 6-10x via understanding | Chris Olah's workPersonChris OlahBiographical overview of Chris Olah's career trajectory from Google Brain to co-founding Anthropic, focusing on his pioneering work in mechanistic interpretability including feature visualization, ...Quality: 27/100 |
| Lab safety standards | High | 4-6x via industry norms | Partnership on AI↗🔗 webPartnership on AIA nonprofit organization focused on responsible AI development by convening technology companies, civil society, and academic institutions. PAI develops guidelines and framework...foundation-modelstransformersscalingsocial-engineering+1Source ↗ |
| Compute governance | Medium | 3-5x supplementary value | CSET↗🔗 web★★★★☆CSET GeorgetownCSET: AI Market DynamicsI apologize, but the provided content appears to be a fragmentary collection of references or headlines rather than a substantive document that can be comprehensively analyzed. ...prioritizationresource-allocationportfolioescalation+1Source ↗ research |
| Pause advocacy | Low | 1x or negative (unnecessary) | Premature intervention |
| Field-building | High | 5-8x via capacity | CHAIOrganizationCenter for Human-Compatible AICHAI is UC Berkeley's AI safety research center founded by Stuart Russell in 2016, pioneering cooperative inverse reinforcement learning and human-compatible AI frameworks. The center has trained 3...Quality: 37/100, MATS↗🔗 webMATS Research ProgramMATS is an intensive training program that helps researchers transition into AI safety, providing mentorship, funding, and community support. Since 2021, over 446 researchers ha...safetytrainingtalentfield-building+1Source ↗ |
Coherence Check: If you believe this worldview but work on pause advocacy or aggressive regulation, your efforts may be counterproductive.
Cluster 3: "Governance-Focused" Worldview
Beliefs: Medium-long timelines + Medium difficulty + Coordination feasible
| Intervention Category | Priority | Expected ROI | Key Institutions |
|---|---|---|---|
| International coordination | Very High | 10-15x via global governance | UK AISIOrganizationUK AI Safety InstituteThe UK AI Safety Institute (renamed AI Security Institute in Feb 2025) operates with ~30 technical staff and 50M GBP annual budget, conducting frontier model evaluations using its open-source Inspe...Quality: 52/100, US AISIOrganizationUS AI Safety InstituteThe US AI Safety Institute (AISI), established November 2023 within NIST with $10M budget (FY2025 request $82.7M), conducted pre-deployment evaluations of frontier models through MOUs with OpenAI a...Quality: 91/100 |
| Domestic regulation | Very High | 6-10x via norm-setting | EU AI Act↗🔗 web★★★★☆European UnionEU AI Officecapabilitythresholdrisk-assessmentdefense+1Source ↗ |
| Institution-building | Very High | 8-12x via capacity | AI Safety Institute↗🏛️ government★★★★☆UK AI Safety InstituteAI Safety Institutesafetysoftware-engineeringcode-generationprogramming-ai+1Source ↗ development |
| Technical standards | High | 4-6x enabling governance | NIST AI RMF↗🏛️ government★★★★★NISTNIST AI Risk Management Frameworksoftware-engineeringcode-generationprogramming-aifoundation-models+1Source ↗ |
| Technical research | Medium | 3-5x (others lead) | Research coordination role |
| Pause advocacy | Low | 1-2x premature | Governance development first |
Coherence Check: If you believe this worldview but focus purely on technical research, you may be underutilizing comparative advantage.
Cluster 4: "Accelerationist/Optimist" Worldview
Beliefs: Any timeline + Tractable alignment + Any coordination level
| Intervention Category | Priority | Expected ROI | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability development | Very High | 15-25x via benefits | AI solves problems faster than creates them |
| Deployment governance | Medium | 2-4x addressing specific harms | Targeted harm prevention |
| Technical safety | Low | 1-2x already adequate | RLHF sufficient for current systems |
| Pause/slowdown | Very Low | Negative ROI | Delays beneficial AI |
| Aggressive regulation | Very Low | Large negative ROI | Stifles innovation unnecessarily |
Coherence Check: If you hold this worldview but work on safety research or pause advocacy, your work contradicts your beliefs about AI risk levels.
Intervention Effectiveness Matrix
The following analysis shows how intervention effectiveness varies dramatically across worldviews:
| Intervention | Short+Hard (Doomer) | Short+Tractable (Sprint) | Long+Hard (Patient) | Long+Tractable (Optimist) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pause/slowdown | Very High (10x) | Low (1x) | Medium (4x) | Very Low (-2x) |
| Compute governance | Very High (8x) | Medium (3x) | High (6x) | Low (1x) |
| Alignment research | High (3x) | Low (2x) | Very High (12x) | Low (1x) |
| InterpretabilitySafety AgendaInterpretabilityMechanistic interpretability has extracted 34M+ interpretable features from Claude 3 Sonnet with 90% automated labeling accuracy and demonstrated 75-85% success in causal validation, though less th...Quality: 66/100 | High (4x) | Medium (5x) | Very High (10x) | Medium (3x) |
| International treaties | Medium (2x) | Low (1x) | Very High (15x) | Medium (4x) |
| Domestic regulation | Medium (3x) | Medium (4x) | High (8x) | Medium (3x) |
| Lab safety standards | High (6x) | High (7x) | High (8x) | Medium (4x) |
| Field-building | Low (1x) | Low (2x) | Very High (12x) | Medium (5x) |
| Public engagement | Medium (4x) | Low (2x) | High (7x) | Low (1x) |
Critical Insight
Working on "Very High" priority interventions under the wrong worldview can waste 5-10x resources compared to optimal allocation. This represents one of the largest efficiency losses in the AI safety field.
Portfolio Strategies for Uncertainty
Timeline Uncertainty Management
| Uncertainty Level | Recommended Allocation | Hedge Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| 50/50 short vs long | 60% urgent interventions, 40% patient capital | Compute governance + field-building |
| 70% short, 30% long | 80% urgent, 20% patient with option value | Standards + some institution-building |
| 30% short, 70% long | 40% urgent, 60% patient development | Institution-building + some standards |
Alignment Difficulty Hedging
| Belief Distribution | Technical Research | Governance/Coordination | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50% hard, 50% tractable | 40% allocation | 60% allocation | Governance has value regardless |
| 80% hard, 20% tractable | 20% allocation | 80% allocation | Focus on buying time |
| 20% hard, 80% tractable | 70% allocation | 30% allocation | Technical solutions likely |
Coordination Feasibility Strategies
| Scenario | Unilateral Capacity | Multilateral Investment | Leading Actor Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| High coordination feasibility | 20% | 60% | 20% |
| Medium coordination feasibility | 40% | 40% | 20% |
| Low coordination feasibility | 60% | 10% | 30% |
Current State & Trajectory
Field-Wide Worldview Distribution
| Worldview Cluster | Estimated Prevalence | Resource Allocation | Alignment Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doomer | 15-20% of researchers | ≈30% of resources | Moderate misalignment |
| Technical Optimist | 40-50% of researchers | ≈45% of resources | Good alignment |
| Governance-Focused | 25-30% of researchers | ≈20% of resources | Poor alignment |
| Accelerationist | 5-10% of researchers | ≈5% of resources | Unknown |
Observed Misalignment Patterns
Based on AI Alignment Forum↗✏️ blog★★★☆☆Alignment ForumAI Alignment Forumalignmenttalentfield-buildingcareer-transitions+1Source ↗ surveys and 80,000 Hours↗🔗 web★★★☆☆80,000 Hours80,000 Hours methodologyprioritizationresource-allocationportfoliotalent+1Source ↗ career advising:
| Common Mismatch | Frequency | Estimated Efficiency Loss |
|---|---|---|
| "Short timelines" researcher doing field-building | 25% of junior researchers | 3-5x effectiveness loss |
| "Alignment solved" researcher doing safety work | 15% of technical researchers | 2-3x effectiveness loss |
| "Coordination impossible" researcher doing policy | 10% of policy researchers | 4-6x effectiveness loss |
2024-2027 Trajectory Predictions
| Trend | Likelihood | Impact on Field Efficiency |
|---|---|---|
| Increased worldview polarization | High | -20% to -30% efficiency |
| Better worldview-work matching | Medium | +15% to +25% efficiency |
| Explicit worldview institutions | Low | +30% to +50% efficiency |
Key Uncertainties & Cruxes
Key Questions
- ?What's the actual distribution of worldviews among AI safety researchers?
- ?How much does worldview-work mismatch reduce field effectiveness quantitatively?
- ?Can people reliably identify and articulate their own worldview assumptions?
- ?Would explicit worldview discussion increase coordination or create harmful polarization?
- ?How quickly should people update worldviews based on new evidence?
- ?Do comparative advantages sometimes override worldview-based prioritization?
Resolution Timelines
| Uncertainty | Evidence That Would Resolve | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Actual worldview distribution | Comprehensive field survey | 6-12 months |
| Quantified efficiency losses | Retrospective impact analysis | 1-2 years |
| Worldview updating patterns | Longitudinal researcher tracking | 2-5 years |
| Institutional coordination effects | Natural experiments with explicit worldview orgs | 3-5 years |
Implementation Guidance
For Individual Researchers
| Career Stage | Primary Action | Secondary Actions |
|---|---|---|
| Graduate students | Identify worldview before specializing | Talk to advisors with different worldviews |
| Postdocs | Audit current work against worldview | Consider switching labs if misaligned |
| Senior researchers | Make worldview explicit in work | Mentor others on worldview coherence |
| Research leaders | Hire for worldview diversity | Create space for worldview discussion |
For Organizations
| Organization Type | Strategic Priority | Implementation Steps |
|---|---|---|
| Research organizations | Clarify institutional worldview | Survey staff, align strategy, communicate assumptions |
| Grantmaking organizations | Develop worldview-coherent portfolios | Map grantee worldviews, identify gaps, fund strategically |
| Policy organizations | Coordinate across worldview differences | Create cross-worldview working groups |
| Field-building organizations | Facilitate worldview discussion | Host workshops, create assessment tools |
For Funders
| Funding Approach | When Appropriate | Risk Management |
|---|---|---|
| Single worldview concentration | High confidence in specific worldview | Diversify across intervention types within worldview |
| Worldview hedging | High uncertainty about key parameters | Fund complementary approaches, avoid contradictory grants |
| Worldview arbitrage | Identified underinvested worldview-intervention combinations | Focus on neglected high-value combinations |
Failure Mode Analysis
Individual Failure Modes
| Failure Mode | Prevalence | Mitigation Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Social conformity bias | High | Create protected spaces for worldview diversity |
| Career incentive misalignment | Medium | Reward worldview-coherent work choices |
| Worldview rigidity | Medium | Encourage regular worldview updating |
| False precision in beliefs | High | Emphasize uncertainty and portfolio approaches |
Institutional Failure Modes
| Failure Mode | Symptoms | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Worldview monoculture | All staff share same assumptions | Actively hire for belief diversity |
| Incoherent strategy | Contradictory intervention portfolio | Make worldview assumptions explicit |
| Update resistance | Strategy unchanged despite new evidence | Create structured belief updating processes |
Sources & Resources
Research Literature
| Category | Key Sources | Quality | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Worldview surveys | AI Alignment Forum survey↗✏️ blog★★★☆☆Alignment ForumAI Alignment Forum surveyRob Bensinger (2021)alignmentprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ | Medium | Community beliefs |
| Intervention effectiveness | 80,000 Hours research↗🔗 web★★★☆☆80,000 Hours80,000 Hours AI Safety Career GuideThe 80,000 Hours AI Safety Career Guide argues that future AI systems could develop power-seeking behaviors that threaten human existence. The guide outlines potential risks and...safetyprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ | High | Career prioritization |
| Strategic frameworks | Coefficient Giving worldview reports↗🔗 webOpen Philanthropy worldview reportsprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ | High | Cause prioritization |
Tools & Assessments
| Resource | Purpose | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Worldview self-assessment | Individual belief identification | AI Safety Fundamentals↗🔗 webAI Safety FundamentalssafetyprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ |
| Intervention prioritization calculator | Portfolio optimization | EA Forum tools↗✏️ blog★★★☆☆EA ForumEA Forum Career Poststalentfield-buildingcareer-transitionsprioritization+1Source ↗ |
| Career decision frameworks | Work-belief alignment | 80,000 Hours coaching↗🔗 web★★★☆☆80,000 Hours80,000 Hours coachingprioritizationworldviewstrategySource ↗ |
Organizations by Worldview
| Organization | Primary Worldview | Core Interventions |
|---|---|---|
| MIRIOrganizationMachine Intelligence Research InstituteComprehensive organizational history documenting MIRI's trajectory from pioneering AI safety research (2000-2020) to policy advocacy after acknowledging research failure, with detailed financial da...Quality: 50/100 | Doomer (short+hard) | Agent foundations, pause advocacy |
| AnthropicOrganizationAnthropicComprehensive profile of Anthropic, founded in 2021 by seven former OpenAI researchers (Dario and Daniela Amodei, Chris Olah, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish) with early funding... | Technical optimist | Constitutional AI, interpretability |
| CSET↗🔗 web★★★★☆CSET GeorgetownCSET: AI Market DynamicsI apologize, but the provided content appears to be a fragmentary collection of references or headlines rather than a substantive document that can be comprehensively analyzed. ...prioritizationresource-allocationportfolioescalation+1Source ↗ | Governance-focused | Policy research, international coordination |
| Redwood ResearchOrganizationRedwood ResearchA nonprofit AI safety and security research organization founded in 2021, known for pioneering AI Control research, developing causal scrubbing interpretability methods, and conducting landmark ali...Quality: 78/100 | Technical optimist | Alignment research, interpretability |
Related Models & Pages
Complementary Models
- AI Risk Portfolio AnalysisModelAI Risk Portfolio AnalysisQuantitative portfolio framework recommending AI safety resource allocation: 40-70% to misalignment, 15-35% to misuse, 10-25% to structural risks, varying by timeline. Based on 2024 funding analysi...Quality: 64/100 - Risk category prioritization across scenarios
- Racing DynamicsRiskAI Development Racing DynamicsRacing dynamics analysis shows competitive pressure has shortened safety evaluation timelines by 40-60% since ChatGPT's launch, with commercial labs reducing safety work from 12 weeks to 4-6 weeks....Quality: 72/100 - How competition affects coordination feasibility
- International Coordination GameModelInternational AI Coordination Game ModelGame-theoretic analysis demonstrating that US-China AI coordination defaults to mutual defection (racing) because defection dominates when cooperation probability falls below 50%, with current esti...Quality: 59/100 - Factors affecting cooperation
Related Worldviews
- Doomer WorldviewConceptAI Doomer WorldviewComprehensive overview of the 'doomer' worldview on AI risk, characterized by 30-90% P(doom) estimates, 10-15 year AGI timelines, and belief that alignment is fundamentally hard. Documents core arg...Quality: 38/100 - Short timelines, hard alignment assumptions
- Governance-Focused WorldviewConceptGovernance-Focused WorldviewThis worldview argues governance/coordination is the bottleneck for AI safety (not just technical solutions), estimating 10-30% P(doom) by 2100. Evidence includes: compute export controls reduced H...Quality: 67/100 - Coordination optimism, institution-building focus
- Long Timelines WorldviewConceptLong-Timelines Technical WorldviewComprehensive overview of the long-timelines worldview (20-40+ years to AGI, 5-20% P(doom)), arguing for foundational research over rushed solutions based on historical AI overoptimism, current sys...Quality: 91/100 - Patient capital, fundamental research emphasis