✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

You should go to ML conferences — LessWrong

lesswrong.com · 2,072 words · saved by 1 readers

This is second kind of obvious point to make, but if you are interested in AI, AI safety, or cognition in general, it is likely worth going to top ML conferences, such as NeurIPS, ICML or ICLR. In this post I cover some reasons why, and some anecdotal stories. Looking at the "Best paper awards" at ICML, you'll find these safety-relevant or alignment-relevant papers: which amounts to about one-third (!). "Because of safety concerns" is part of the motivation for hundreds of papers. While the signal-to-noise ratio is even worse than on LessWrong, in total, the amount you can learn is higher - my personal guess is there is maybe 2-3x as much prosaic AI safety relevant work at conferences than what you get by just following LessWrong, Alignment Forum and safety-oriented communication channels. Almost all papers are presented in the form of posters. In case of a big conference, this usually means many thousands of posters presented in huge poster sessions. My routine for engaging with t

x You should go to ML conferences — LessWrong Machine Learning (ML) Scholarship & Learning AI Frontpage 112 You should go to ML conferences by Jan_Kulveit 24th Jul 2024 5 min read 13 112 This is a second kind of obvious point to make, but if you are interested in AI, AI safety, or cognition in general, it is likely worth going to top ML conferences, such as NeurIPS, ICML or ICLR. In this post I cover some reasons why, and some anecdotal stories. 1. Parts of AI alignment and safety are now completely mainstream Looking at the "Best paper awards" at ICML , you'll find these safety-relevant or al

Explore this link on the map →

related reading