• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Davidad Questions Ghelich View on AI Formal Verification

    AI safety researcher suggests explanation markets and human axiom endorsement.

    D🎇
    1 Source, 26d ago, first seen 26d ago

    TLDR

    David Dalrymple posted a comment disagreeing with Ghelich about formal verification in AI. He argues that formal verification extends beyond basic checks to include comparison of explanations through imprecise Bayesian hypothesis comparison. Dalrymple also suggests that an explanation market could help align incentives in the process. At the same time he notes that humans in a trusted quorum would need to endorse the chosen axioms along with the outcome specifications. The statement comes from his account where he discusses technical alignment and provably safe AI systems. The packet presents this as his direct quote on the topic.

    Combined views

    1.3K

    1 Source, first seen 26d ago

    Combined views

    1.3K

    1 Source, first seen 26d ago

    8 likes
    8 likes
    1 saves

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    1 saves

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    1 Source

    @davidadI don’t think Ghelich is *exactly* correct. Formal verification can extend to comparison of explanations (imprecise Bayesian hypothesis comparison), and an “explanation market” can align incentives. But a trusted quorum of humans must still endorse the axioms, and outcome specs.

    1 Source

    @davidadI don’t think Ghelich is *exactly* correct. Formal verification can extend to comparison of explanations (imprecise Bayesian hypothesis comparison), and an “explanation market” can align incentives. But a trusted quorum of humans must still endorse the axioms, and outcome specs.