Nobody knowing how to build AGI hardly counts as “knowing tons already”.
Some of the stuff about how to make safe airplanes is obvious. Stuff like how to design the plane so as to minimize the risk of spin isn’t. If you disagree, please tell me how to build a maximally stall-safe airplane without looking at the Wikipedia link or otherwise looking it up.
Humanity basically already knows how to build AGI. That doesn’t really matter, though. FAI and AGI are incredibly different problems. They share basically none of the same architectural features. I think that understanding what an AGI is or what it would do is incredibly important for FAI; is that what you mean? But knowing how to build AGI doesn’t do that for you; you still have to actually turn it on.
Agree that my parenthetical was straight-up wrong, but it was indeed a parenthetical. I still think the analogy is too loose to be useful.
I’d like evidence of the claim that humanity, or some subset thereof, “basically already knows how to build AGI”. I would stipulate that we know how to do whole-brain emulation, giving adequate computational resources; is that what you had in mind?
Can I be aware of something that I think might be false? Anyway, I am aware that people do not seem to understand that a small amount of information when requested is significantly better than no information, and I am aware that there are no affordances that would allow people to take the 3 seconds of reflection that would be necessary to realize this after realizing that their implicit expectations about how much information they deserve to receive from near-anonymous people are probably not based on any sort of explicitly justified or explicitly reflected-upon analysis. Because there’s never an affordance for basic sanity, especially not when you’re busy climbing over the dead bodies towards the top slot of a huge negative sum signalling game and you’re not even sure why you’re playing and you don’t really care to find out. Ya know, what I love about memes is that even if Buddhas never have kids it doesn’t matter much, any mind can become a vessel for perfection via reflection on clarification of perception. The genes can abstain from burning the cosmic commons with viral waste—how much of karma is the timeless-analogous-controlling-decision to engage in the class of actions that prominently includes negative sum signalling games? -- while the memes spread farther and farther even without so desiring, simply by the timeless beauty of their nature. Right makes might makes right, as they say.
When someone tells you a normally hidden consequence of what you’re doing, you don’t tell them off.
The norm is to give a full answer. If you don’t, say you will elaborate later, give a summary, or say it’s too long to explain. Don’t unilaterally defect.
If you defect, you’re telling people your time is more precious than theirs. This is rude.
In particular, you bother to post on LW in the first place. “Near-strangers deserve no information from me” is unfair.
We want to promote pointing out specific problems. A rant against memetics and signalling games in general is a bad answer to specific criticism.
that a small amount of information when requested is significantly better than no information
That’s assuming that the information is correct. It could also be wrong or misleading, in which case it would be better not to receive it. While “Do you mean whole brain emulation?” “No” doesn’t fall into this category, claims like “we know how to build AGI” are definitely claims that could be wrong, and are indeed generally considered to be wrong.
Unless you provide a reasonable argument or reason for why we should believe such a claim, anyone maintaining any epistemic hygiene standards (or common sense, for that matter) will be forced to ignore it. Therefore such comments only serve as a distraction, providing no useful value but taking up space and attention.
If I were to comment on conversations and tell people that 2 + 2 = 5 and then refuse to provide any justification when asked, people would quite reasonably conclude that I was a troll, too.
Anyway, I am aware that people do not seem to understand that a small amount of information when requested is significantly better than no information, and I am aware that there are no affordances that would allow people to take the 3 seconds of reflection that would be necessary to realize this after realizing that their implicit expectations about how much information they deserve to receive from near-anonymous people are probably not based on any sort of explicitly justified or explicitly reflected-upon analysis.
When I notice myself writing a sentence like that, I drop it and do something else. Maybe I would come back to it later, but not less than 24 hours later.
I try to as well. Unfortunately I was distraught squared at the time and wasn’t thinking at all clearly as far as social reasoning goes. My apologies to everyone for failing to keep my comments sufficiently constructive.
Nobody knowing how to build AGI hardly counts as “knowing tons already”.
Some of the stuff about how to make safe airplanes is obvious. Stuff like how to design the plane so as to minimize the risk of spin isn’t. If you disagree, please tell me how to build a maximally stall-safe airplane without looking at the Wikipedia link or otherwise looking it up.
Humanity basically already knows how to build AGI. That doesn’t really matter, though. FAI and AGI are incredibly different problems. They share basically none of the same architectural features. I think that understanding what an AGI is or what it would do is incredibly important for FAI; is that what you mean? But knowing how to build AGI doesn’t do that for you; you still have to actually turn it on.
Agree that my parenthetical was straight-up wrong, but it was indeed a parenthetical. I still think the analogy is too loose to be useful.
I’d like evidence of the claim that humanity, or some subset thereof, “basically already knows how to build AGI”. I would stipulate that we know how to do whole-brain emulation, giving adequate computational resources; is that what you had in mind?
No.
You are aware that exchanges such as this one will make most people think you’re a troll, right?
Can I be aware of something that I think might be false? Anyway, I am aware that people do not seem to understand that a small amount of information when requested is significantly better than no information, and I am aware that there are no affordances that would allow people to take the 3 seconds of reflection that would be necessary to realize this after realizing that their implicit expectations about how much information they deserve to receive from near-anonymous people are probably not based on any sort of explicitly justified or explicitly reflected-upon analysis. Because there’s never an affordance for basic sanity, especially not when you’re busy climbing over the dead bodies towards the top slot of a huge negative sum signalling game and you’re not even sure why you’re playing and you don’t really care to find out. Ya know, what I love about memes is that even if Buddhas never have kids it doesn’t matter much, any mind can become a vessel for perfection via reflection on clarification of perception. The genes can abstain from burning the cosmic commons with viral waste—how much of karma is the timeless-analogous-controlling-decision to engage in the class of actions that prominently includes negative sum signalling games? -- while the memes spread farther and farther even without so desiring, simply by the timeless beauty of their nature. Right makes might makes right, as they say.
When someone tells you a normally hidden consequence of what you’re doing, you don’t tell them off.
The norm is to give a full answer. If you don’t, say you will elaborate later, give a summary, or say it’s too long to explain. Don’t unilaterally defect.
If you defect, you’re telling people your time is more precious than theirs. This is rude.
In particular, you bother to post on LW in the first place. “Near-strangers deserve no information from me” is unfair.
We want to promote pointing out specific problems. A rant against memetics and signalling games in general is a bad answer to specific criticism.
That’s assuming that the information is correct. It could also be wrong or misleading, in which case it would be better not to receive it. While “Do you mean whole brain emulation?” “No” doesn’t fall into this category, claims like “we know how to build AGI” are definitely claims that could be wrong, and are indeed generally considered to be wrong.
Unless you provide a reasonable argument or reason for why we should believe such a claim, anyone maintaining any epistemic hygiene standards (or common sense, for that matter) will be forced to ignore it. Therefore such comments only serve as a distraction, providing no useful value but taking up space and attention.
If I were to comment on conversations and tell people that 2 + 2 = 5 and then refuse to provide any justification when asked, people would quite reasonably conclude that I was a troll, too.
When I notice myself writing a sentence like that, I drop it and do something else. Maybe I would come back to it later, but not less than 24 hours later.
I try to as well. Unfortunately I was distraught squared at the time and wasn’t thinking at all clearly as far as social reasoning goes. My apologies to everyone for failing to keep my comments sufficiently constructive.
Tested retract+edit again.
-
Could you expand?