The field of AI safety research is expanding rapidly, but researchers often struggle to get timely, high-quality feedback on their ideas. While conferences and personal networks provide some opportunities for validation, these are limited and infrequent. This creates bottlenecks in the important process of refining and improving AI safety concepts.
One potential solution involves creating a specialized platform where researchers could submit their AI safety ideas to receive automated yet thoughtful feedback. When a researcher submits an idea description, a language model trained on AI safety papers could analyze it and generate constructive responses. The feedback might highlight strengths and weaknesses, suggest relevant existing research, offer ideas for further development, or point out potential risks.
The system could benefit various stakeholders:
A simple starting version might include just a web interface connected to existing language models. More advanced versions could involve custom training on safety literature and optional human verification. To address concerns, the platform might offer anonymous submissions and clear policies about intellectual property.
The concept differs from general research tools by specifically focusing on the ideation phase of AI safety work. Where services like Elicit help find papers, this would suggest how to strengthen emerging ideas. Unlike human-only feedback systems, it could provide near-instant responses while still allowing for human oversight when needed.
Testing key assumptions would be important before full development - verifying that models can actually give useful safety feedback and that researchers would use such a system. An MVP could assess feasibility while more advanced versions might explore hybrid human-AI approaches or integration with research workflows. Various funding models could support development while keeping the focus on advancing AI safety research.
This approach attempts to balance the scale of automation with the nuance needed for safety discussions, potentially accelerating progress in this crucial field.
Hours To Execute (basic)
Hours to Execute (full)
Estd No of Collaborators
Financial Potential
Impact Breadth
Impact Depth
Impact Positivity
Impact Duration
Uniqueness
Implementability
Plausibility
Replicability
Market Timing
Project Type
Digital Product