MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386098588 · doi:10.11647/obp.0336.09

9. From Turing’s Speculations to an Academic Discipline: A History of AI Existential Safety

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386098588 on OpenAlexaff
John Burden, Sam Clarke, Jess Whittlestone

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Book Publishers · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHubrisExistentialismEngineering ethicsEpistemologyEngineeringPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through a short history of research into artificial intelligence, this chapter emphasises the need to ensure the safety of such technology. From longstanding fears of hubris to contemporary technical challenges, concerns around this modern technology are discussed, and the need to make progress on AI existential safety to avoid dangers to future generations is scrutinised.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.031
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Book PublishersSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207