[jpt4]

MIRI is entirely Blue Team - they work to create theoretical [0] safeguards on AI agents yet to be developed. I've long envisioned a counterpart Red Team that does nothing but build AIs that attempt to subvert these safety features, since the rest of the world of non Friendly AI [1] research is only unco-ordinated para-red behavior.

[0] In the sense of "valid under these known precepts", not "speculative".

[1] Non "Friendly AI", not "non-Friendly" AI.

[gallabytes]

I find that perception fairly surprising, as for a very long time it felt like we did more red team than blue team. I do acknowledge that this has been changing recently, but only significantly in the context of building on the results in this paper.

[jpt4]

Would you please direct me to an example of MIRI's Red Team efforts that isn't the recent "Malevolent AI" paper [0]? Adherence to the belief that UFAI is a threshold-grade existential risk seems to compel a "define first, delay implementation" strategy, lest any step forward be the irrevocable wrong one.

[0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02817

[gallabytes]

This makes me think the only thing we disagree on is the meaning of the words "red team" and "blue team" :)

When I say it feels like we spend a lot of time red teaming, that means I think we spend somewhere between 30 and 60% of research time trying to break things and see how they fail. This is fully compatible with not immediately implementing things - it's much less expensive to break something /before/ you build it.

[jpt4]

It is refreshing when only the maps, and not the objects, are under serious contention. I suspect I still might prefer walking a shade closer to the line dividing definitely intra and potentially extra boxed agents, but you are the ones actually in the arena - do keep up the interesting work.