Guardrails removed spam, off-topic, unclear, or duplicate replies.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
You hear a lot about the "pivot penalty". What you don't hear so much is about how much fun it is to pivot as a researcher. I have been *loving* doing empirical LLM evaluations with my lab. From the first conversation I had with ChatGPT I have been blown away by how good LLMs can be at moral reasoning. But how can you actually measure something like that? It's really hard! What are you even measuring against? Not like there's some gold standard you can really appeal to. I would've been interested in this even if it didn't have any downstream payoffs, because I think increasing the universe of kinds of moral reasoners from n=1 to n=2 is a momentous event in its own right. But it seems pretty clear now that if you want to have safe superhuman AI, it's going to need to be morally competent, to say the least. And if you're one of the folks concerned about the moral status of future AI systems, moral competence is very likely to be a big part of that too (we have another paper coming out on that soon). I wrote about this for @cosmos_inst (link in next), because their "philosopher-builder" agenda resonates with me so much. We also have a bunch of papers up on arxiv, including our first straight-up CS conference publication (accepted in CoLM), which I'll be highlighting on here over the next week or two.
@sethlazar 👀👀
The ongoing research is conducted in collaboration with the Cosmos Institute.
Guardrails removed spam, off-topic, unclear, or duplicate replies.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.