> The papers are mostly good, actuallyNot surprising. Computer scientists have a bit of experience with computation, after all. It would actually be more concerning if a bunch of new stuff was being invented whole cloth.
> but it's sort of putting the cart before the horse.
Not at all. ML algorithms are just fucking algorithms and computer scientists have been thinking about what it means for an algorithm to be correct since... Turing.
And have been proving various theorems about ML algorithms in particular since at least the 60s.
Complaints that "AI safety looks a lot like previous CS research" are basically equivalent to observations that "neural nets have been around for a lot longer than alexnet".
> I think there might be legitimate value in having a bunch of lawyers, sociologists, and philosophers set a target more-or-less in ignorance, and let the people on the technical side try to hit it.
I disagree. This is how you end up with endless navel gazing about trolley problems while actual vehicles kill people by accelerating without control because redundant parts are too expensive and engineers don't have enough voice. Philosophers are rarely interested in honest-to-god engineering ethics, which almost always boils down to "pay well enough to hire good people, and then listen to the good people you're paying good money to have around".