for - suggestion- debate between AI safety researcher Roman Yampolskiy and Musk and founders of AI - difference - business leaders vs pure researchers // - Comment - Business leaders are mainly driven by profit so already have a bias going into a debate with a researcher who is neutral and has no declared business interest

//

for - stats - AI evolution - equivalent of 100 million human researchers working 24/7

stats - AI evolution - equivalent of 100 million human researchers working 24/7 - By 2027, the industry's aim is to have tens of millions of GPU training clusters, running - millions of copies of automated AI researchers, or the equivalent of - 100 million human AI researchers working 24/7

for - key insight - AGI as automated AI researchers to create superintelligence

key insight - AGI as automated AI researchers to create superintelligence - We will reach a period of explosive, exponential AI research growth once AGI has been produced - The key is to deploy AGI as AI researchers that can do AI research 24/7 - 5,000 of such AGI research agents could result in superintelligence in a very short time period (years) - because every time any one of them makes a breakthrough, it is immediately sent to all 4,999 other AGI researchers

Lots of papers write about the effect that the UK's focus on comprehensive impact affects the quality of research and individual researchers

REF has become embedded within university governance - including career progression criteria (for researchers presumably)

One really oughtn't downplay their research skills like this, rather they should wear them as a badge of honor. Downplaying them leeches away one's power.

Ph.D. researchers may potentially go deeper into sources, but this is only a function of time and available attention.

This sort of debate also plays out in spaces like writing computer code. The broader industry determines who is and isn't a "coder", but this is only a means of creating power structures that determine who has power and who doesn't or who is part of the conversation and who isn't.

Don't let Maggie fool you here, she is definitely part of this conversation.

What areas of work over time does this pattern of level of experience not apply to?

There is definitely a level of minimal literacy at which one could be considered a reader, but there is no distinction between amateur reader and professional reader the way there might be between an "amateur researcher" and a full time "academic researcher".

Other examples of this? Video game playing?

Tollefson, J. (2021, April 16). The race to curb the spread of COVID vaccine disinformation. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00997-x?error=cookies_not_supported&code=0d3302c0-59b3-4065-8835-2a6d99ca35cc

Topol, E. J. (2021, March 18). It’s Okay to Overreact: Devi Sridhar Shares COVID’s Humbling Lesson. Medscape. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/947382

Komporozos-Athanasiou, Aris, Jonathan Paylor, and Christopher Mckevitt. ‘Governing Researchers through Public Involvement’. Journal of Social Policy, undefined/ed, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727942100012X.

McCabe, Stefan, Leo Torres, Timothy LaRock, Syed Arefinul Haque, Chia-Hung Yang, Harrison Hartle, and Brennan Klein. ‘Netrd: A Library for Network Reconstruction and Graph Distances’. ArXiv:2010.16019 [Physics], 29 October 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.16019.

IZA – Institute of Labor Economics. ‘COVID-19 and the Labor Market’. Accessed 6 October 2020. https://covid-19.iza.org/publications/dp13650/.