Plausible cases for HRAD work, and locating the crux in the "realism about rationality" debate
📖 Description
This post is my attempt to summarize and distill the major public debates about MIRI's [highly reliable agent designs](https://intelligence.org/files/TechnicalAgenda.pdf) (HRAD) work (which includes work on decision theory), including the discussions in [Realism about rationality](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/suxvE2ddnYMPJN9HD/realism-about-rationality) and Daniel Dewey's [My current thoughts on MIRI's "highly reliable agent design" work](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/SEL9PW8jozrvLnkb4/my-current-thoughts-on-miri-s-highly-reliable-agent-design). Part of the difficulty with discussing the value of HRAD work is that it's not even clear what the disagreement is about, so my summary takes the form of multiple possible "worlds" we might be in; each world consists of a positive case for doing HRAD work, along with the potential objections to that case, which results in one or more cruxes.
📊 Game Impacts
| Variable | Change | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Research | +10 | Always |
| Vibey Doom | +5 | Always |
| Ethics Risk | -5 | Always |
💭 Reactions
"This is a significant contribution to alignment research"
"Discussed in AI safety community"
🤝 Found an Issue?
This event data is sourced from the pdoom-data repository. If you notice errors or want to suggest improvements:
GitHub Issue (Preferred) 📧 Email (No GitHub)