I don’t feel like making this a whole blog post, but my biggest source for optimism for why we won’t need to one-shot an aligned superintelligence is that anyone who’s trained AI models knows that AIs are unbelievably cursed. What do I mean by this? I mean even the first quasi-superintelligent AI we get will have so many problems and so many exploits that taking over the world will simply not be possible. Take a “superintelligence” that only had to beat humans at the very constrained game of Go, which is far simpler than the real world. Everyone talked about how such systems were unbeatable by humans, until some humans used a much “dumber” AI to find glaring holes in Leela Zero’s strategy. I expect, in the far more complex “real world”, a superintelligence will have even more holes, and even more exploits, a kind of “swiss chess superintelligence”. You can say “but that’s not REAL superintelligence”, and I don’t care, and the AIs won’t care. But it’s likely the thing we’ll get first. Patching all of those holes, and finding ways to make such an ASI sufficiently not cursed will also probably mean better understanding of how to stop it from wanting to kill us, if it wanted to kill us in the first place. I think we can probably get AIs that are sufficiently powerful in a lot of human domains, and can probably even self-improve, and still be cursed. The same way we have AIs with natural language understanding, something once thought to be a core component of human intelligence, that are still cursed. A cursed ASI is a danger for exploitation, but it’s also an opportunity.
On 12 September 1940, the entrance to the Lascaux Cave was discovered on the La Rochefoucauld-Montbel lands by 18-year-old Marcel Ravidat when his dog, Robot, investigated a hole left by an uprooted tree (Ravidat would embellish the story in later retellings, saying Robot had fallen into the cave.)[8][9] Ravidat returned to the scene with three friends, Jacques Marsal, Georges Agnel, and Simon Coencas. They entered the cave through a 15-metre-deep (50-foot) shaft that they believed might be a legendary secret passage to the nearby Lascaux Manor.[9][10][11] The teenagers discovered that the cave walls were covered with depictions of animals.[12][13] Galleries that suggest continuity, context or simply represent a cavern were given names. Those include the Hall of the Bulls, the Passageway, the Shaft, the Nave, the Apse, and the Chamber of Felines. They returned along with the Abbé Henri Breuil on 21 September 1940; Breuil would make many sketches of the cave, some of which are used as study material today due to the extreme degradation of many of the paintings. Breuil was accompanied by Denis Peyrony, curator of Les eyzies (Prehistory Museum) at Les Eyzies, Jean Bouyssonie and Dr Cheynier.
The cave complex was opened to the public on 14 July 1948, and initial archaeological investigations began a year later, focusing on the Shaft. By 1955, carbon dioxide, heat, humidity, and other contaminants produced by 1,200 visitors per day had visibly damaged the paintings. As air condition deteriorated, fungi and lichen increasingly infested the walls. Consequently, the cave was closed to the public in 1963, the paintings were restored to their original state, and a monitoring system on a daily basis was introduced.
Lascaux II, an exact copy of the Great Hall of the Bulls and the Painted Gallery was displayed at the Grand Palais in Paris, before being displayed from 1983 in the cave’s vicinity (about 200 m or 660 ft away from the original cave), a compromise and attempt to present an impression of the paintings’ scale and composition for the public without harming the originals.[10][13] A full range of Lascaux’s parietal art is presented a few kilometres from the site at the Centre of Prehistoric Art, Le Parc du Thot, where there are also live animals representing ice-age fauna.[14]
The paintings for this site were duplicated with the same type of materials (such as iron oxide, charcoal, and ochre) which were believed to be used 19,000 years ago.[9][15][16][17] Other facsimiles of Lascaux have also been produced over the years.
They have also created additional copies, Lascaux III, Lascaux IV, and Lascaux V.
Consequently, the cave was closed to the public in 1963, the paintings were restored to their original state, and a monitoring system on a daily basis was introduced.
“I actually find it overwhelmingly hopeful, that four teenagers and a dog named Robot discovered a cave with 17,000-year-old handprints, that the cave was so overwhelmingly beautiful that two of those teenagers devoted themselves to its protection. And that when we humans became a danger to that caves’ beauty, we agreed to stop going. Lascaux is there. You cannot visit.”
-John Green
People preserve the remains of Lucy, work hard to preserve old books, the Mona Lisa is protected under bullet-proof glass and is not up for sale.
What is the mechanistic reason for this? There are perfect copies of these things, yet humans go through great lengths to preserve the original. Why is there the Sacred?
They have created copies of Lascaux, yet still work hard to preserve the original. Humans cannot enter. They get no experience of joy from visiting. It is not for sale. Yet they strongly desire to protect it, because it is the original, and no other reason.
Robin Hanson gave a list of Sacred characteristic, some I find promising:
Sacred things are highly (or lowly) valued. We revere, respect, & prioritize them.
Sacred is big, powerful, extraordinary. We fear, submit, & see it as larger than ourselves.
We want the sacred “for itself”, rather than as a means to get other things.
Sacred makes us feel less big, distinct, independent, in control, competitive, entitled.
We get emotionally attached to the sacred; our stance re it is oft part of our identity.
We desire to connect with the sacred, and to be more associated with it.
Sacred things are sharply set apart and distinguished from the ordinary, mundane.
Re sacred, we fear a slippery slope, so that any compromise leads to losing it all.
If we can understand the sacred, it seems like a concept that probably wouldn’t fall into a simple utility function, something that wouldn’t break out-of-distribution. A kind of Sacred Human Value Shard, something that protects our part of the manifold.
A practical reason for preserving the original is that new techniques can allow new things to be discovered about it. A copy can embody no more than the observations that we have already made.
There’s no point to analysing the pigments in a modern copy of a painting, or carbon-dating its frame.
if we could somehow establish how information from the original was extracted, do you expect humans to then destroy the original or allow it to be destroyed?
No. The original is a historical document that may have further secrets to be revealed by methods yet to be invented. A copy says of the original only what was put into it.
I think you’re missing the point. If we could establish that all important information had been extracted from the original, would you expect humans to then destroy the original or allow it to be destroyed?
My guess is that they wouldn’t. Which I think means practicality is not the central reason why humans do this.
The following is a conversation between myself in 2022, and a newer version of myself earlier this year.
On AI Governance and Public Policy
2022 Me: I think we will have to tread extremely lightly with, or, if possible, avoid completely. One particular concern is the idea of gaining public support. Many countries have an interest in pleasing their constituents, so if executed well, this could be extremely beneficial. However, it runs high risk of doing far more damage. One major concern is the different mindset needed to conceptualize the problem. Alerting people to the dangers of Nuclear War is easier: nukes have been detonated, the visual image of incineration is easy to imagine and can be described in detail, and they or their parents have likely lived through nuclear drills in school. This is closer to trying to explain someone the dangers of nuclear war before Hiroshima, before the Manhattan Project, and before even tnt was developed. They have to conceptualize what an explosion even is, not simply imagining an explosion at greater scale. Most people will simply not have the time or the will to try to grasp this problem, so this runs the risk of having people calling for action to a problem they do not understand, which will likely lead to dismissal by AI Researchers, and possibly short-sighted policies that don’t actually tackle the problem, or even make the problem worse by having the guise of accomplishment. To make matters worse, there is the risk of polarization. Almost any concern with political implications that has gained widespread public attention runs a high risk of becoming polarized. We are still dealing with the ramifications of well-intentioned, but misguided, early advocates in the Climate Change movement two decades ago, who set the seeds for making climate policy part of one’s political identity. This could be even more detrimental than a merely uninformed electorate, as it might push people who had no previous opinion on AI to advocate strongly in favor of capabilities acceleration, and to be staunchly against any form of safety policy. Even if executed using the utmost caution, this does not stop other players from using their own power or influence to hijack the movement and lead it astray.
2023 Me: Ah, Me’22,, the things you don’t know! Many of the concerns of Me’22 I think are still valid, but we’re experiencing what chess players might call a “forced move”. People are starting to become alarmed, regardless of what we say or do, so steering that in a direction we want is necessary. The fire alarm is being pushed, regardless, and if we don’t try to show some leadership in that regard, we risk less informed voices and blanket solutions winning-out. The good news is “serious” people are going on “serious” platforms and actually talking about x-risk. Other good news is that, from current polls, people are very receptive to concerns over x-risk and it has not currently fallen into divisive lines (roughly the same % of those concerned fall equally among various different demographics). This is still a difficult minefield to navigate. Polarization could still happen, especially with an Election Year in the US looming. I’ve also been talking to a lot of young people who feel frustrated not having anything actionable to do, and if those in AI Safety don’t show leadership, we might risk (and indeed are already risking), many frustrated youth taking political and social action into their own hands. We need to be aware that EA/LW might have an Ivory Tower problem, and that, even though a pragmatic, strategic, and careful course of action might be better, this might make many feel “shut out” and attempt to steer their own course. Finding a way to make those outside EA/LW/AIS feel included, with steps to help guide and inform them, might be critical to avoiding movement hijacking.
On Capabilities vs. Alignment Research:
2022 Me: While I strongly agree that not increasing capabilities is a high priority right now, I also question if we risk creating a state of inertia. In terms of the realms of safety research, there are very few domains that do not risk increasing capabilities research. And, while capabilities continues to progress every day, we might risk failing to keep up the speed of safety progress simply because every action risks an increase in capabilities. Rather than a “do no harm” principle, I think counterfactuals need to be examined in these situations, where we must consider if there is a greater risk if we *don’t* do research in a certain domain.
2023 Me: Oh, oh, oh! I think Me’22 was actually ahead of the curve on this one. This might still be controversial, but I think many got the “capabilities space” wrong. Many AIS-inspired theories that could increase capabilities are for systems that could be safer, more interpretable, and easier to monitor by default. And by not working on such systems we instead got the much more inscrutable, dangerous models by default, because the more dangerous models are easier. To quote the vape commercials, “safer != safe” but I still quit smoking in favor of electronics because safer is still at least safer. This is probably a moot point now, though, since I think it’s likely too late to create an entirely new paradigm in AI architectures. Hopefully Me’24 will be happy to tell me we found a new, 100% safe and effective new paradigm that everyone’s hopping on. Or maybe he’ll invent it.
Say you’re really, really worried about humans going to the moon. Don’t ask why, but you view it as an existential catastrophe. And you notice people building bigger and bigger airplanes, and warn that one day, someone will build an airplane that’s so big, and so fast, that it veers off course and lands on the moon, spelling doom. Some argue that going to the moon takes intentionality. That you can’t accidentally create something capable of going to the moon. But you say “Look at how big those planes are getting! We’ve gone from small fighter planes, to bombers, to jets in a short amount of time. We’re on a double exponential of plane tech, and it’s just a matter of time before one of them will land on the moon!”
Contra Scheming AIs
There is a lot of attention on mesaoptimizers, deceptive alignment, and inner misalignment. I think a lot of this can fall under the umbrella of “scheming AIs”. AIs that either become dangerous during training and escape, or else play nice until humans make the mistake of deploying them. Many have spoken about the lack of an indication that there’s a “humanculi-in-a-box”, and this is usually met with arguments that we wouldn’t see such things manifest until AIs are at a certain level of capability, and at that point, it might be too late, making comparisons to owl eggs, or baby dragons. My perception is that getting something like a “scheming AI” or “humanculi-a-box” isn’t impossible, and we could (and might) develop the means to do so in the future, but that it’s a very, very different kind of thing than current models (even at superhuman level), and that it would take a degree of intentionality.
But you say “Look at how big those planes are getting! We’ve gone from small fighter planes, to bombers, to jets in a short amount of time. We’re on a double exponential of plane tech, and it’s just a matter of time before one of them will land on the moon!”
...And they were right? Humans did land on the moon roughly on that timeline (and as I recall, there were people before the moon landing at RAND and elsewhere who were extrapolating out the exponentials of speed, which was a major reason for such ill-fated projects like the supersonic interceptors for Soviet bombers), and it was a fairly seamless set of s-curves, as all of the aerospace technologies were so intertwined and shared similar missions of ‘make stuff go fast’ (eg. rocket engines could power a V-2, or it could power a Me 163 instead). What is a spy satellite but a spy plane which takes one very long reconnaissance flight? And I’m sure you recall what the profession was of almost all of the American moon landers were before they became astronauts—plane pilots, usually military.
And all of this happened with minimal intentionality up until not terribly long before the moon landing happened! Yes, people like von Braun absolutely intended to go to the moon (and beyond), but those were rare dreamers. Most people involved in building all of those capabilities that made a moon mission possible had not the slightest intent of going to the moon—right up until Kennedy made his famous speech, America turned on a dime, and, well, the rest is history.
It is said that in long-term forecasting, it is better to focus on capabilities than intentions… And intentions have never been more mutable, and more irrelevant on average, than with AIs.
(“If your solution to some problem relies on ‘If everyone would just…’ then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.”)
I assume that by scheming you mean ~deceptive alignment? I think it’s very unlikely that current AIs are scheming and I don’t see how you draw this conclusion from that paper. (Maybe something about the distilled CoT results?)
The best definition I would have of “scheming” would be “the model is acting deceptively about its own intentions or capabilities in order to fool a supervisor” [1]. This behavior seems to satisfy that pretty solidly:
Of course, in this case the scheming goal was explicitly trained for (as opposed to arising naturally out of convergent instrumental power drives), but it sure seems to me like its engaging in the relevant kind of scheming.
I agree there is more uncertainty and lack of clarity on whether deceptively-aligned systems will arise “naturally”, but the above seems like a clear example of someone artificially creating a deceptively-aligned system.
Joe Carlsmith uses “whether advanced AIs that perform well in training will be doing so in order to gain power later”, but IDK, that feels really underspecified. Like, there are just tons of reasons for why the AI will want to perform well in training for power-seeking reasons, and when I read the rest of the report it seems like Joe was more analyzing it through the deception of supervisors lens.
I agree current models sometimes trick their supervisors ~intentionally and it’s certainly easy to train/prompt them to do so.
I don’t think current models are deceptively aligned and I think that this poses substantial additional risk.
I personally like Joe’s definition and it feels like a natural category in my head, but I can see why you don’t like it. You should consider tabooing the word scheming or saying something more specific as many people mean something more specific that is different from what you mean.
Yeah, that makes sense. I’ve noticed miscommunications around the word “scheming” a few times, so am in favor of tabooing it more. “Engage in deception for instrumental reasons” seems like an obvious extension that captures a lot of what I care about.
If progress in AI is continuous, we should expect record levels of employment. Not the opposite.
My mentality is if progress in AI doesn’t have a sudden, foom-level jump, and if we all don’t die, most of the fears of human unemployment are unfounded… at least for a while. Say we get AIs that can replace 90% of the workforce. The productivity surge from this should dramatically boost the economy, creating more companies, more trading, and more jobs. Since AIs can be copied, they would be cheap, abundant labor. This means anything a human can do that an AI still can’t becomes a scarce, highly valued resource. Companies with thousands or millions of AI instances working for them would likely compete for human labor, because making more humans takes much longer than making more AIs. Then say, after a few years, AIs are able to automate 90% of the remaining 10%. Then that creates even more productivity, more economic growth, and even more jobs. This could continue for even a few decades. Eventually, humans will be rendered completely obsolete, but by that point (most) of them might be so filthy rich that they won’t especially care.
This doesn’t mean it’ll all be smooth-sailing or that humans will be totally happy with this shift. Some people probably won’t enjoy having to switch to a new career, only for that new career to be automated away after a few years, and then have to switch again. This will probably be especially true for people who are older, those who have families, want a stable and certain future, etc. None of this will be made easier by the fact it’ll probably be hard to tell when true human obsolescence is on the horizon, so some might be in a state of perpetual anxiety, and others will be in constant denial.
The inverse argument I have seen on reddit happens if you try to examine how these ai models might work and learn.
One method is to use a large benchmark of tasks, where model capabilities is measured as the weighted harmonic mean of all tasks.
As the models run, much of the information gained doing real world tasks is added as training and test tasks to the benchmark suite. (You do this whenever a chat task has an output that can be objectively checked, and for robotic tasks you run in lockstep a neural sim similar to Sora that makes testable predictions for future real world input sets)
What this means is most models learn from millions of parallel instances of themselves and other models.
This means the more models are deployed in the world—the more labor is automated—the more this learning mechanism gets debugged, and the faster models learn, and so on.
There are also all kinds of parallel task gains. For example once models have experience working on maintaining the equipment in a coke can factory, and an auto plant, and a 3d printer plant, this variety of tasks with common elements should cause new models trained in sim to gain “general maintenance” skills at least for machines that are similar to the 3 given. (The “skill” is developing a common policy network that compresses the 3 similar policies down to 1 policy on the new version of the network)
With each following task, the delta—the skills the AI system needs to learn it doesn’t already know—shrinks. This shrinking learning requirement likely increases faster than the task difficulty increases. (Since the most difficult tasks is still doable by a human, and also the AI system is able to cheat a bunch of ways. For example using better actuators to make skilled manual trades easy, or software helpers to best champion Olympiad contestants)
You have to then look at what barriers there are to AI doing a given task to decide what tasks are protected for a while.
Things that just require a human body to do:
Medical test subject.
Food taster, perfume evaluator, fashion or aesthetics evaluator.
Various kinds of personal service worker.
AI Supervisor roles:
Arguably checking that the models haven’t betrayed us yet, and sanity checking plans and outputs seem like this would be a massive source of employment.
AI developer roles :
the risks mean that some humans need to have a deep understanding of how the current gen of AI works, and the tools and time to examine what happened during a failure. Someone like this needs to be skeptical of an explanation by another ai system for the obvious reasons.
Government/old institution roles:
Institutions that don’t value making a profit may continue using human staff for decades after AI can do their jobs, even when it can be shown ai makes less errors and more legally sound decisions.
TLDR: Arguably for the portion of jobs that can be automated, the growth rate should be exponential, from the easiest and most common jobs to the most difficult and unique ones.
There is a portion of tasks that humans are required to do for a while, and a portion where it might be a good idea not to ever automate it.
The following is a conversation between myself in 2022, and a newer version of me earlier this year.
On the Nature of Intelligence and its “True Name”:
2022 Me: This has become less obvious to me as I’ve tried to gain a better understanding of what general intelligence is. Until recently, I always made the assumption that intelligence and agency were the same thing. But General Intelligence, or G, might not be agentic. Agents that behave like RLs may only be narrow forms of intelligence, without generalizability. G might be something closer to a simulator. From my very naive perception of neuroscience, it could be that we (our intelligence) is not agentic, but just simulates agents. In this situation, the prefrontal cortex not only runs simulations to predict its next sensory input, but might also run simulations to predict inputs from other parts of the brain. In this scenario, “desire” or “goals”, might be simulations to better predict narrowly-intelligent agentic optimizers. Though the simulator might be myopic, I think this prediction model allows for non-myopic behavior, in a similar way GPT has non-myopic behavior, despite only trying to predict the next token (it has an understanding of where a future word “should” be within the context of a sentence, paragraph, or story). I think this model of G allows for the appearance of intelligent goal-seeking behavior, long-term planning, and self-awareness. I have yet to find another model for G that allows for all three. The True Name of G might be Algorithm Optimized To Reduce Predictive Loss.
2023 Me: interesting, me’22, but let me ask you something: you seem to think this majestic ‘G’ is something humans have, but other species do not, and then name the True Name of ‘G’ to be Algorithm Optimized To Reduce Predictive Loss. Do you *really* think other animals don’t do this? How long is a cat going to survive if it can’t predict where it’s going to land? Or where the mouse’s path trajectory is heading? Did you think it was all somehow hardcoded in? But cats can jump up on tables, and those weren’t in the ancestry environment, there’s clearly some kind of generalized form of prediction occurring. Try formulating that answer again, but taboo “intelligence”, “G”, “agent”, “desire”, and “goal”. I think the coherence of it breaks down.
Now, what does me’23 think? Well, I’m going to take a leaf from my own book, and try to explain what I think without the words mentioned above. There are predictive mechanisms in the Universe that can run models of what things in the Universe might do in future states. Some of these predictive mechanism are more computationally efficient than others. Some will be more effective than others. A more effective and efficient predictive mechanism, with a large input of information about the Universe, could be a very powerful tool. If taken to the theoretical (not physical) extreme, that predictive mechanism would hold models of all possible future states. It could then, by accident or intention, guide outcomes toward certain future states over others.
2022 Me: according to this model, humans dream because the simulator is now making predictions without sensory input, gradually creating a bigger and bigger gap from reality. Evidence to support this is from sensory-deprivation tanks, where humans, despite being awake, have dream-like states. I also find it interesting that people who exhibit Schizophrenia, which involves hallucinations (like dreams do), can tickle themselves. Most people can be tickled by others, but not themselves. But normal people on LSD can do this, and also can have hallucinations. My hairbrained theory is that something is going wrong when initializing new tokens for the simulator, which results in hallucinations from the lack of correction from sensory input, and a less strong sense of self because of a lack of correction from RL agents in other parts of the brain.
2023 Me: I don’t want to endorse crackpot theories from Me’22, so I’m just going to speak from feelings and fuzzy intuitions here. I will say hallucinations from chatbots are interesting. When getting one to hallucinate, it seems to be kind of “making up reality as it goes along”. You say it’s a Unicorn, and it will start coming up with explanations for why it’s a Unicorn. You say it told you something you never told it, and it will start acting as though it did. I have to admit it does have a strange resemblance to dreams. I find myself in New York, but remember that I had been in Thailand that morning, and I hallucinate a memory of boarding a plane. I wonder where I got the plane ticket, and I hallucinate another memory of buying one. These are not well-reasoned arguments, though, so I hope Me’24 won’t beat me up too much about them.
2022 Me: I have been searching for how to test this theory. One interest of mine has been mirrors.
2023 Me: Don’t listen to Me’22 on this one. He thought he understood something, but he didn’t. Yes, the mirror thing is interesting in animals, but it’s probably a whole different thing, not the same thing.
Contra One Critical Try: AIs are all cursed
I don’t feel like making this a whole blog post, but my biggest source for optimism for why we won’t need to one-shot an aligned superintelligence is that anyone who’s trained AI models knows that AIs are unbelievably cursed. What do I mean by this? I mean even the first quasi-superintelligent AI we get will have so many problems and so many exploits that taking over the world will simply not be possible. Take a “superintelligence” that only had to beat humans at the very constrained game of Go, which is far simpler than the real world. Everyone talked about how such systems were unbeatable by humans, until some humans used a much “dumber” AI to find glaring holes in Leela Zero’s strategy. I expect, in the far more complex “real world”, a superintelligence will have even more holes, and even more exploits, a kind of “swiss chess superintelligence”. You can say “but that’s not REAL superintelligence”, and I don’t care, and the AIs won’t care. But it’s likely the thing we’ll get first. Patching all of those holes, and finding ways to make such an ASI sufficiently not cursed will also probably mean better understanding of how to stop it from wanting to kill us, if it wanted to kill us in the first place. I think we can probably get AIs that are sufficiently powerful in a lot of human domains, and can probably even self-improve, and still be cursed. The same way we have AIs with natural language understanding, something once thought to be a core component of human intelligence, that are still cursed. A cursed ASI is a danger for exploitation, but it’s also an opportunity.
See also lack of adversarial robustness is a weapon we can use against AIs
And catching AIs red-handed
Humans are infinitely cursed (see “cognitive biases” or “your neighbour-creationist”), it doesn’t change the fact that humans are ruling the planet.
Can humans become Sacred?
On 12 September 1940, the entrance to the Lascaux Cave was discovered on the La Rochefoucauld-Montbel lands by 18-year-old Marcel Ravidat when his dog, Robot, investigated a hole left by an uprooted tree (Ravidat would embellish the story in later retellings, saying Robot had fallen into the cave.)[8][9] Ravidat returned to the scene with three friends, Jacques Marsal, Georges Agnel, and Simon Coencas. They entered the cave through a 15-metre-deep (50-foot) shaft that they believed might be a legendary secret passage to the nearby Lascaux Manor.[9][10][11] The teenagers discovered that the cave walls were covered with depictions of animals.[12][13] Galleries that suggest continuity, context or simply represent a cavern were given names. Those include the Hall of the Bulls, the Passageway, the Shaft, the Nave, the Apse, and the Chamber of Felines. They returned along with the Abbé Henri Breuil on 21 September 1940; Breuil would make many sketches of the cave, some of which are used as study material today due to the extreme degradation of many of the paintings. Breuil was accompanied by Denis Peyrony, curator of Les eyzies (Prehistory Museum) at Les Eyzies, Jean Bouyssonie and Dr Cheynier.
The cave complex was opened to the public on 14 July 1948, and initial archaeological investigations began a year later, focusing on the Shaft. By 1955, carbon dioxide, heat, humidity, and other contaminants produced by 1,200 visitors per day had visibly damaged the paintings. As air condition deteriorated, fungi and lichen increasingly infested the walls. Consequently, the cave was closed to the public in 1963, the paintings were restored to their original state, and a monitoring system on a daily basis was introduced.
Lascaux II, an exact copy of the Great Hall of the Bulls and the Painted Gallery was displayed at the Grand Palais in Paris, before being displayed from 1983 in the cave’s vicinity (about 200 m or 660 ft away from the original cave), a compromise and attempt to present an impression of the paintings’ scale and composition for the public without harming the originals.[10][13] A full range of Lascaux’s parietal art is presented a few kilometres from the site at the Centre of Prehistoric Art, Le Parc du Thot, where there are also live animals representing ice-age fauna.[14]
The paintings for this site were duplicated with the same type of materials (such as iron oxide, charcoal, and ochre) which were believed to be used 19,000 years ago.[9][15][16][17] Other facsimiles of Lascaux have also been produced over the years.
They have also created additional copies, Lascaux III, Lascaux IV, and Lascaux V.
Consequently, the cave was closed to the public in 1963, the paintings were restored to their original state, and a monitoring system on a daily basis was introduced.
“I actually find it overwhelmingly hopeful, that four teenagers and a dog named Robot discovered a cave with 17,000-year-old handprints, that the cave was so overwhelmingly beautiful that two of those teenagers devoted themselves to its protection. And that when we humans became a danger to that caves’ beauty, we agreed to stop going. Lascaux is there. You cannot visit.”
-John Green
People preserve the remains of Lucy, work hard to preserve old books, the Mona Lisa is protected under bullet-proof glass and is not up for sale.
What is the mechanistic reason for this? There are perfect copies of these things, yet humans go through great lengths to preserve the original. Why is there the Sacred?
They have created copies of Lascaux, yet still work hard to preserve the original. Humans cannot enter. They get no experience of joy from visiting. It is not for sale. Yet they strongly desire to protect it, because it is the original, and no other reason.
Robin Hanson gave a list of Sacred characteristic, some I find promising:
Sacred things are highly (or lowly) valued. We revere, respect, & prioritize them.
Sacred is big, powerful, extraordinary. We fear, submit, & see it as larger than ourselves.
We want the sacred “for itself”, rather than as a means to get other things.
Sacred makes us feel less big, distinct, independent, in control, competitive, entitled.
Sacred quiets feelings of: doubts, anxiety, ego, self-criticism, status-consciousness.
We get emotionally attached to the sacred; our stance re it is oft part of our identity.
We desire to connect with the sacred, and to be more associated with it.
Sacred things are sharply set apart and distinguished from the ordinary, mundane.
Re sacred, we fear a slippery slope, so that any compromise leads to losing it all.
If we can understand the sacred, it seems like a concept that probably wouldn’t fall into a simple utility function, something that wouldn’t break out-of-distribution. A kind of Sacred Human Value Shard, something that protects our part of the manifold.
A practical reason for preserving the original is that new techniques can allow new things to be discovered about it. A copy can embody no more than the observations that we have already made.
There’s no point to analysing the pigments in a modern copy of a painting, or carbon-dating its frame.
if we could somehow establish how information from the original was extracted, do you expect humans to then destroy the original or allow it to be destroyed?
No. The original is a historical document that may have further secrets to be revealed by methods yet to be invented. A copy says of the original only what was put into it.
Only recently an ancient, charred scroll was first read.
I think you’re missing the point. If we could establish that all important information had been extracted from the original, would you expect humans to then destroy the original or allow it to be destroyed?
My guess is that they wouldn’t. Which I think means practicality is not the central reason why humans do this.
I think you’re missing my point, which is that we cannot establish that.
Yes, I’m questioning your hypothetical. I always question hypotheticals.
The following is a conversation between myself in 2022, and a newer version of myself earlier this year.
On AI Governance and Public Policy
2022 Me: I think we will have to tread extremely lightly with, or, if possible, avoid completely. One particular concern is the idea of gaining public support. Many countries have an interest in pleasing their constituents, so if executed well, this could be extremely beneficial. However, it runs high risk of doing far more damage. One major concern is the different mindset needed to conceptualize the problem. Alerting people to the dangers of Nuclear War is easier: nukes have been detonated, the visual image of incineration is easy to imagine and can be described in detail, and they or their parents have likely lived through nuclear drills in school. This is closer to trying to explain someone the dangers of nuclear war before Hiroshima, before the Manhattan Project, and before even tnt was developed. They have to conceptualize what an explosion even is, not simply imagining an explosion at greater scale. Most people will simply not have the time or the will to try to grasp this problem, so this runs the risk of having people calling for action to a problem they do not understand, which will likely lead to dismissal by AI Researchers, and possibly short-sighted policies that don’t actually tackle the problem, or even make the problem worse by having the guise of accomplishment. To make matters worse, there is the risk of polarization. Almost any concern with political implications that has gained widespread public attention runs a high risk of becoming polarized. We are still dealing with the ramifications of well-intentioned, but misguided, early advocates in the Climate Change movement two decades ago, who set the seeds for making climate policy part of one’s political identity. This could be even more detrimental than a merely uninformed electorate, as it might push people who had no previous opinion on AI to advocate strongly in favor of capabilities acceleration, and to be staunchly against any form of safety policy. Even if executed using the utmost caution, this does not stop other players from using their own power or influence to hijack the movement and lead it astray.
2023 Me: Ah, Me’22,, the things you don’t know! Many of the concerns of Me’22 I think are still valid, but we’re experiencing what chess players might call a “forced move”. People are starting to become alarmed, regardless of what we say or do, so steering that in a direction we want is necessary. The fire alarm is being pushed, regardless, and if we don’t try to show some leadership in that regard, we risk less informed voices and blanket solutions winning-out. The good news is “serious” people are going on “serious” platforms and actually talking about x-risk. Other good news is that, from current polls, people are very receptive to concerns over x-risk and it has not currently fallen into divisive lines (roughly the same % of those concerned fall equally among various different demographics). This is still a difficult minefield to navigate. Polarization could still happen, especially with an Election Year in the US looming. I’ve also been talking to a lot of young people who feel frustrated not having anything actionable to do, and if those in AI Safety don’t show leadership, we might risk (and indeed are already risking), many frustrated youth taking political and social action into their own hands. We need to be aware that EA/LW might have an Ivory Tower problem, and that, even though a pragmatic, strategic, and careful course of action might be better, this might make many feel “shut out” and attempt to steer their own course. Finding a way to make those outside EA/LW/AIS feel included, with steps to help guide and inform them, might be critical to avoiding movement hijacking.
On Capabilities vs. Alignment Research:
2022 Me: While I strongly agree that not increasing capabilities is a high priority right now, I also question if we risk creating a state of inertia. In terms of the realms of safety research, there are very few domains that do not risk increasing capabilities research. And, while capabilities continues to progress every day, we might risk failing to keep up the speed of safety progress simply because every action risks an increase in capabilities. Rather than a “do no harm” principle, I think counterfactuals need to be examined in these situations, where we must consider if there is a greater risk if we *don’t* do research in a certain domain.
2023 Me: Oh, oh, oh! I think Me’22 was actually ahead of the curve on this one. This might still be controversial, but I think many got the “capabilities space” wrong. Many AIS-inspired theories that could increase capabilities are for systems that could be safer, more interpretable, and easier to monitor by default. And by not working on such systems we instead got the much more inscrutable, dangerous models by default, because the more dangerous models are easier. To quote the vape commercials, “safer != safe” but I still quit smoking in favor of electronics because safer is still at least safer. This is probably a moot point now, though, since I think it’s likely too late to create an entirely new paradigm in AI architectures. Hopefully Me’24 will be happy to tell me we found a new, 100% safe and effective new paradigm that everyone’s hopping on. Or maybe he’ll invent it.
Going to the moon
Say you’re really, really worried about humans going to the moon. Don’t ask why, but you view it as an existential catastrophe. And you notice people building bigger and bigger airplanes, and warn that one day, someone will build an airplane that’s so big, and so fast, that it veers off course and lands on the moon, spelling doom. Some argue that going to the moon takes intentionality. That you can’t accidentally create something capable of going to the moon. But you say “Look at how big those planes are getting! We’ve gone from small fighter planes, to bombers, to jets in a short amount of time. We’re on a double exponential of plane tech, and it’s just a matter of time before one of them will land on the moon!”
Contra Scheming AIs
There is a lot of attention on mesaoptimizers, deceptive alignment, and inner misalignment. I think a lot of this can fall under the umbrella of “scheming AIs”. AIs that either become dangerous during training and escape, or else play nice until humans make the mistake of deploying them. Many have spoken about the lack of an indication that there’s a “humanculi-in-a-box”, and this is usually met with arguments that we wouldn’t see such things manifest until AIs are at a certain level of capability, and at that point, it might be too late, making comparisons to owl eggs, or baby dragons. My perception is that getting something like a “scheming AI” or “humanculi-a-box” isn’t impossible, and we could (and might) develop the means to do so in the future, but that it’s a very, very different kind of thing than current models (even at superhuman level), and that it would take a degree of intentionality.
...And they were right? Humans did land on the moon roughly on that timeline (and as I recall, there were people before the moon landing at RAND and elsewhere who were extrapolating out the exponentials of speed, which was a major reason for such ill-fated projects like the supersonic interceptors for Soviet bombers), and it was a fairly seamless set of s-curves, as all of the aerospace technologies were so intertwined and shared similar missions of ‘make stuff go fast’ (eg. rocket engines could power a V-2, or it could power a Me 163 instead). What is a spy satellite but a spy plane which takes one very long reconnaissance flight? And I’m sure you recall what the profession was of almost all of the American moon landers were before they became astronauts—plane pilots, usually military.
And all of this happened with minimal intentionality up until not terribly long before the moon landing happened! Yes, people like von Braun absolutely intended to go to the moon (and beyond), but those were rare dreamers. Most people involved in building all of those capabilities that made a moon mission possible had not the slightest intent of going to the moon—right up until Kennedy made his famous speech, America turned on a dime, and, well, the rest is history.
It is said that in long-term forecasting, it is better to focus on capabilities than intentions… And intentions have never been more mutable, and more irrelevant on average, than with AIs.
(“If your solution to some problem relies on ‘If everyone would just…’ then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.”)
It seems pretty likely to me that current AGIs are already scheming. At least it seems like the simplest explanation for things like the behavior observed in this paper: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/ZAsJv7xijKTfZkMtr/sleeper-agents-training-deceptive-llms-that-persist-through
I assume that by scheming you mean ~deceptive alignment? I think it’s very unlikely that current AIs are scheming and I don’t see how you draw this conclusion from that paper. (Maybe something about the distilled CoT results?)
The best definition I would have of “scheming” would be “the model is acting deceptively about its own intentions or capabilities in order to fool a supervisor” [1]. This behavior seems to satisfy that pretty solidly:
Of course, in this case the scheming goal was explicitly trained for (as opposed to arising naturally out of convergent instrumental power drives), but it sure seems to me like its engaging in the relevant kind of scheming.
I agree there is more uncertainty and lack of clarity on whether deceptively-aligned systems will arise “naturally”, but the above seems like a clear example of someone artificially creating a deceptively-aligned system.
Joe Carlsmith uses “whether advanced AIs that perform well in training will be doing so in order to gain power later”, but IDK, that feels really underspecified. Like, there are just tons of reasons for why the AI will want to perform well in training for power-seeking reasons, and when I read the rest of the report it seems like Joe was more analyzing it through the deception of supervisors lens.
I agree current models sometimes trick their supervisors ~intentionally and it’s certainly easy to train/prompt them to do so.
I don’t think current models are deceptively aligned and I think that this poses substantial additional risk.
I personally like Joe’s definition and it feels like a natural category in my head, but I can see why you don’t like it. You should consider tabooing the word scheming or saying something more specific as many people mean something more specific that is different from what you mean.
Yeah, that makes sense. I’ve noticed miscommunications around the word “scheming” a few times, so am in favor of tabooing it more. “Engage in deception for instrumental reasons” seems like an obvious extension that captures a lot of what I care about.
If progress in AI is continuous, we should expect record levels of employment. Not the opposite.
My mentality is if progress in AI doesn’t have a sudden, foom-level jump, and if we all don’t die, most of the fears of human unemployment are unfounded… at least for a while. Say we get AIs that can replace 90% of the workforce. The productivity surge from this should dramatically boost the economy, creating more companies, more trading, and more jobs. Since AIs can be copied, they would be cheap, abundant labor. This means anything a human can do that an AI still can’t becomes a scarce, highly valued resource. Companies with thousands or millions of AI instances working for them would likely compete for human labor, because making more humans takes much longer than making more AIs. Then say, after a few years, AIs are able to automate 90% of the remaining 10%. Then that creates even more productivity, more economic growth, and even more jobs. This could continue for even a few decades. Eventually, humans will be rendered completely obsolete, but by that point (most) of them might be so filthy rich that they won’t especially care.
This doesn’t mean it’ll all be smooth-sailing or that humans will be totally happy with this shift. Some people probably won’t enjoy having to switch to a new career, only for that new career to be automated away after a few years, and then have to switch again. This will probably be especially true for people who are older, those who have families, want a stable and certain future, etc. None of this will be made easier by the fact it’ll probably be hard to tell when true human obsolescence is on the horizon, so some might be in a state of perpetual anxiety, and others will be in constant denial.
The inverse argument I have seen on reddit happens if you try to examine how these ai models might work and learn.
One method is to use a large benchmark of tasks, where model capabilities is measured as the weighted harmonic mean of all tasks.
As the models run, much of the information gained doing real world tasks is added as training and test tasks to the benchmark suite. (You do this whenever a chat task has an output that can be objectively checked, and for robotic tasks you run in lockstep a neural sim similar to Sora that makes testable predictions for future real world input sets)
What this means is most models learn from millions of parallel instances of themselves and other models.
This means the more models are deployed in the world—the more labor is automated—the more this learning mechanism gets debugged, and the faster models learn, and so on.
There are also all kinds of parallel task gains. For example once models have experience working on maintaining the equipment in a coke can factory, and an auto plant, and a 3d printer plant, this variety of tasks with common elements should cause new models trained in sim to gain “general maintenance” skills at least for machines that are similar to the 3 given. (The “skill” is developing a common policy network that compresses the 3 similar policies down to 1 policy on the new version of the network)
With each following task, the delta—the skills the AI system needs to learn it doesn’t already know—shrinks. This shrinking learning requirement likely increases faster than the task difficulty increases. (Since the most difficult tasks is still doable by a human, and also the AI system is able to cheat a bunch of ways. For example using better actuators to make skilled manual trades easy, or software helpers to best champion Olympiad contestants)
You have to then look at what barriers there are to AI doing a given task to decide what tasks are protected for a while.
Things that just require a human body to do: Medical test subject. Food taster, perfume evaluator, fashion or aesthetics evaluator. Various kinds of personal service worker.
AI Supervisor roles: Arguably checking that the models haven’t betrayed us yet, and sanity checking plans and outputs seem like this would be a massive source of employment.
AI developer roles : the risks mean that some humans need to have a deep understanding of how the current gen of AI works, and the tools and time to examine what happened during a failure. Someone like this needs to be skeptical of an explanation by another ai system for the obvious reasons.
Government/old institution roles: Institutions that don’t value making a profit may continue using human staff for decades after AI can do their jobs, even when it can be shown ai makes less errors and more legally sound decisions.
TLDR: Arguably for the portion of jobs that can be automated, the growth rate should be exponential, from the easiest and most common jobs to the most difficult and unique ones.
There is a portion of tasks that humans are required to do for a while, and a portion where it might be a good idea not to ever automate it.
The following is a conversation between myself in 2022, and a newer version of me earlier this year.
On the Nature of Intelligence and its “True Name”:
2022 Me: This has become less obvious to me as I’ve tried to gain a better understanding of what general intelligence is. Until recently, I always made the assumption that intelligence and agency were the same thing. But General Intelligence, or G, might not be agentic. Agents that behave like RLs may only be narrow forms of intelligence, without generalizability. G might be something closer to a simulator. From my very naive perception of neuroscience, it could be that we (our intelligence) is not agentic, but just simulates agents. In this situation, the prefrontal cortex not only runs simulations to predict its next sensory input, but might also run simulations to predict inputs from other parts of the brain. In this scenario, “desire” or “goals”, might be simulations to better predict narrowly-intelligent agentic optimizers. Though the simulator might be myopic, I think this prediction model allows for non-myopic behavior, in a similar way GPT has non-myopic behavior, despite only trying to predict the next token (it has an understanding of where a future word “should” be within the context of a sentence, paragraph, or story). I think this model of G allows for the appearance of intelligent goal-seeking behavior, long-term planning, and self-awareness. I have yet to find another model for G that allows for all three. The True Name of G might be Algorithm Optimized To Reduce Predictive Loss.
2023 Me: interesting, me’22, but let me ask you something: you seem to think this majestic ‘G’ is something humans have, but other species do not, and then name the True Name of ‘G’ to be Algorithm Optimized To Reduce Predictive Loss. Do you *really* think other animals don’t do this? How long is a cat going to survive if it can’t predict where it’s going to land? Or where the mouse’s path trajectory is heading? Did you think it was all somehow hardcoded in? But cats can jump up on tables, and those weren’t in the ancestry environment, there’s clearly some kind of generalized form of prediction occurring. Try formulating that answer again, but taboo “intelligence”, “G”, “agent”, “desire”, and “goal”. I think the coherence of it breaks down.
Now, what does me’23 think? Well, I’m going to take a leaf from my own book, and try to explain what I think without the words mentioned above. There are predictive mechanisms in the Universe that can run models of what things in the Universe might do in future states. Some of these predictive mechanism are more computationally efficient than others. Some will be more effective than others. A more effective and efficient predictive mechanism, with a large input of information about the Universe, could be a very powerful tool. If taken to the theoretical (not physical) extreme, that predictive mechanism would hold models of all possible future states. It could then, by accident or intention, guide outcomes toward certain future states over others.
2022 Me: according to this model, humans dream because the simulator is now making predictions without sensory input, gradually creating a bigger and bigger gap from reality. Evidence to support this is from sensory-deprivation tanks, where humans, despite being awake, have dream-like states. I also find it interesting that people who exhibit Schizophrenia, which involves hallucinations (like dreams do), can tickle themselves. Most people can be tickled by others, but not themselves. But normal people on LSD can do this, and also can have hallucinations. My hairbrained theory is that something is going wrong when initializing new tokens for the simulator, which results in hallucinations from the lack of correction from sensory input, and a less strong sense of self because of a lack of correction from RL agents in other parts of the brain.
2023 Me: I don’t want to endorse crackpot theories from Me’22, so I’m just going to speak from feelings and fuzzy intuitions here. I will say hallucinations from chatbots are interesting. When getting one to hallucinate, it seems to be kind of “making up reality as it goes along”. You say it’s a Unicorn, and it will start coming up with explanations for why it’s a Unicorn. You say it told you something you never told it, and it will start acting as though it did. I have to admit it does have a strange resemblance to dreams. I find myself in New York, but remember that I had been in Thailand that morning, and I hallucinate a memory of boarding a plane. I wonder where I got the plane ticket, and I hallucinate another memory of buying one. These are not well-reasoned arguments, though, so I hope Me’24 won’t beat me up too much about them.
2022 Me: I have been searching for how to test this theory. One interest of mine has been mirrors.
2023 Me: Don’t listen to Me’22 on this one. He thought he understood something, but he didn’t. Yes, the mirror thing is interesting in animals, but it’s probably a whole different thing, not the same thing.