Ryan Kidd

of AI labor, right?

If you can get them to run faster, massively parallelize things, and just, in general, just get them to do your homework, those 2063 AI alignment plans might be automatable over a shorter period of time.

And so we should definitely be pursuing those because the more we do to raise the waterline of understanding on these different scenarios,

the easier it will be to hand off to AI assistance or to accelerate AI input.

I do think it's interesting you said BCI research because I recall being at a conference once when someone was talking about, okay, so the way we're going to solve alignment is we're going to solve human uploading and we're going to like put someone to the computer and like get them to do 100 simulated researcher out, 100 simulated researcher years or something.

And then you maybe build like, it's not very sci-fi, very pantheon.

But then Eliezer Yankowski put his hand up and he said like, I volunteer to be number two.

which makes sense, right?

You don't want to be the first guy that might go wrong.

But yes, people are seriously pursuing that.

And I think it is interesting.

I have talked to some BCI experts about a year ago, and they said there's no way that we get BCI in time for AGI.

Sorry, it's not BCI, sorry.

No way to get human uploading in time for AGI unless you actually have AGI, right?

The time period required would require massive amounts of cognitive labor and human trials and stuff like that.

And I don't know, it does sound very sci-fi.

So I don't think we should rely on something like that.

Though I'm all for people pursuing moonshots on the side.

That's part of what maths is about, right?

We have this massive portfolio with a few moonshots in.