<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Richard Ngo on Vegas Harmon</title>
    <link>https://vegasharmon.com/authors/richard-ngo/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Richard Ngo on Vegas Harmon</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://vegasharmon.com/authors/richard-ngo/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Alignment Exists Because ML Never Became a Science</title>
      <link>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/alignment-exists-because-ml-never-became-a-science/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/alignment-exists-because-ml-never-became-a-science/</guid>
      <description>One reason people are confused about AI alignment losing its ability to make scientific progress is that machine learning as a whole is also not a very scientific field by the standard I’m applying. Even most early AI researchers were more focused on building artificial intelligence than on understanding scientific principles of cognition. The rise of deep learning exacerbated this problem, as throwing more compute and engineering effort at an AI became arbitrarily scalable.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hardware Overhang Work Pulls Us Toward the Singularity</title>
      <link>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/hardware-overhang-work-pulls-us-toward-the-singularity/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/hardware-overhang-work-pulls-us-toward-the-singularity/</guid>
      <description>Insofar as they’re right, all work which was (explicitly or implicitly) justified by the idea of reducing the hardware overhang has been directly pulling us towards the singularity.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Peer Review Isn&#39;t the Point — Scientific Inquiry Is</title>
      <link>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/peer-review-isn-t-the-point-scientific-inquiry-is/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/peer-review-isn-t-the-point-scientific-inquiry-is/</guid>
      <description>A lot of the blame should fall on misguided narratives (common across academia) about what makes science work, which have been entrenched by the best-funded scientific institutions. A core scientific norm is that disputes should be resolved with reference to concrete empirical tests or rigorous proofs, judged by the scrutiny of one’s scientific peers. But that’s very different from the idea that ideas should be developed via paper-sized units of work which are each individually defended and justified.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Wanting to Pull the Lever, Then Finding Reasons Why</title>
      <link>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/wanting-to-pull-the-lever-then-finding-reasons-why/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vegasharmon.com/commonplace/wanting-to-pull-the-lever-then-finding-reasons-why/</guid>
      <description>What went wrong here? It’s hard to know exactly what led any given person to endorse any given argument. But when we zoom out, it becomes clear that many people in this space really want to pull some lever that feels important, and privilege arguments which justify that. That might come from a sense that they need to have an impact on the world; or fear about failing to fulfil their potential; or the more mundane explanation that big levers tend to be associated with money and prestige and proximity to power.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
