Incentiv News

NO

NO

YES

None. This argument is sound and Eliezer will be compelled to look at Krantz's work.

12. 10 and 11 imply that it is possible to incentivize people to understand the alignment problem.

10. It is possible to build a machine that pays individuals for demonstrating they’ve understood something.

11. If individuals can see that they will earn a substantial cash reward for demonstrating they understand something, they will be incentivized to demonstrate they understand it.

8. People learn the things that they have obvious incentives to learn.

17. 5, 12, 14, 15 and 16 imply that if your goal is to prevent the scaling of dangerous AI, then you should review the work of Krantz.

18. If AI safety orgs understood there was an effective function that converts capital into public awareness of existential risk from AI, then they would supply that function with capital.

1. If AI develops the capability to control the environment better than humans, then humanity is doomed.

2. If we continue to scale AI capabilities, then it will eventually be able to control the environment better than humans.

3. 1 and 2 imply that if we continue to scale AI capabilities, then humanity is doomed.

4. We should not be doomed.

5. 3 and 4 imply that we should stop scaling AI.

6. If every person on the planet understood the alignment problem as well as Eliezer Yudkowsky, then we would not scale AI to the point where it can control the environment better than humans.

7. People only understand the things they have learned.

9. 6, 7, and 8 imply that if people had sufficient and obvious incentives to understand the alignment problem, then we would not scale AI to the point where it can control the environment better than humans.

13. If a majority of people understood the actual risks posed by scaling AI, then they would vote for representatives that support legislature that prevents the scaling of AI.

14. 9 and 13 imply that if we sufficiently incentivize the understanding of the alignment problem, then people would take action to prevent dangerous AI scaling.

15. If your goal is to prevent the scaling of dangerous AI, then you should be working on building mechanisms that incentivize awareness of the issue. (from 14)

16. Krantz's work is aimed at building a mechanism that incentivizes the demonstration of knowledge.

NO

Grover Project w/ Or

[James's system of equations for multichoice mechanism versions](https://manifold.markets/JamesGrugett/solve-these-equations-for-a-simpler#pcfde0bgc1)

Formalizing "Categorical Composable Cryptography"

SNARK project w/ Sanjam

Data availability phase changes

`nazg`: Proving Ring Equalities Done Wrong

Post-quantum backdoorable VDFs

Iuvenes Project w/ Or

Mechanism design to incentivize `mathlib` contribution

Optimal sampling for statistical democracy w/ Surya

Formal Proof for Marlin w/ Pratyush

Eigenlayer Project w/ Or

NeRF the world

TEE via physics/materials science w/ Sylvain

Krugman's Interstellar trade redux

Solving Hanabi

Automated Market Maker Monte Carlo w/ @EvanDaniel

Quantum cowry shells

range saturation tactic

Mixing for slow traders

Homotopy theory DeFi

Violating classical consensus impossibility results with quantum

Poisson average-case TSP

Efficient polynomial multiplication for mathlib

YES

YES

YES

YES