# To contribute to AI safety, consider doing AI research

Among those concerned about risks from advanced AI, I've encountered people who would be interested in a career in AI research, but are worried that doing so would speed up AI capability relative to safety. I think it is a mistake for AI safety proponents to avoid going into the field for this reason (better reasons include being well-positioned to do AI safety work, e.g. at MIRI or FHI). This mistake contributed to me choosing statistics rather than computer science for my PhD, which I have some regrets about, though luckily there is enough overlap between the two fields that I can work on machine learning anyway. I think the value of having more AI experts who are worried about AI safety is far higher than the downside of adding a few drops to the ocean of people trying to advance AI. Here are several reasons for this:

1.  Concerned researchers can inform and influence their colleagues, especially if they are outspoken about their views.
2.  Studying and working on AI brings understanding of the current challenges and [breakthroughs](http://futureoflife.org/2015/12/29/the-top-a-i-breakthroughs-of-2015/) in the field, which can usefully inform AI safety work (e.g. [wireheading in reinforcement learning agents](https://www6.inra.fr/mia-paris/Equipes/LInK/Les-anciens-de-LInK/Laurent-Orseau/Mortal-universal-agents-wireheading)).
3.  Opportunities to work on AI safety are beginning to spring up within academia and industry, e.g. through FLI grants. In the next few years, it will be possible to do an AI-safety-focused PhD or postdoc in computer science, which would hit two birds with one stone.

To elaborate on #1, one of the prevailing arguments against taking long-term AI safety seriously is that not enough experts in the AI field are worried. Several prominent researchers have commented on the potential risks (Stuart Russell, Bart Selman, Murray Shanahan, Shane Legg, and others), and more are concerned but keep quiet for reputational reasons. An accomplished, strategically outspoken and/or well-connected expert can make a big difference in the attitude distribution in the AI field and the level of familiarity with the [actual concerns](http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015) (which are not about malevolence, sentience, or marching robot armies). Having more informed skeptics who have maybe even read [Superintelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dangers,_Strategies), and fewer uninformed skeptics who think AI safety proponents are afraid of Terminators, would produce much needed direct and productive discussion on these issues. As the proportion of informed and concerned researchers in the field approaches critical mass, the reputational consequences for speaking up will decrease.

A year after FLI's [Puerto Rico conference](http://futureoflife.org/2015/10/12/ai-safety-conference-in-puerto-rico/), the subject of long-term AI safety is no longer taboo among AI researchers, but remains rather controversial. Addressing AI risk on the long term will require safety work to be a significant part of the field, and close collaboration between those working on safety and capability of advanced AI. [Stuart Russell](https://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~russell/research/future/) makes the apt analogy that "just as nuclear fusion researchers consider the problem of containment of fusion reactions as one of the primary problems of their field, issues of control and safety will become central to AI as the field matures". If more people who are already concerned about AI safety join the field, we can make this happen faster, and help [wisdom win the race with capability](http://futureoflife.org/2016/01/07/the-wisdom-race-is-heating-up/).

(Cross-posted from [my blog](https://vkrakovna.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/to-contribute-to-ai-safety-consider-doing-ai-research/). Thanks to [Janos Kramar](/user/janos) for his help with editing this post.)