I think you’re going to need quite powerful AI to make serious progress on aging. In fact, what you’re really going to need is systemic tissue replacement, and those replacements are going to take time to grow.
I think that in turn makes it pretty likely we get bigger warning shots than we’ve gotten thus far.
My best guess is that results in net negative sentiment towards accelerationism. If you look at the general public’s answers to questions like “would you rather have a million dollars of a 50% chance of $100 million” and you’ll see that the average person is quite conservative. I’d be a little surprised if they want gamble on AI-enabled radical longevity if they think there’s a serious danger of AI job loss and/or death.
My bigger concern at the moment is that we might not get another warning shot because AI is become situationally aware enough to falsify logs. And we seem to be getting pretty close to RSI.
Agreed that people seem very conservative with respect to risk and disruption, and this probably tips the scales towards being fearful of AI rather than going full e/Acc. And furthermore, indeed—making “serious” progress on aging is probably really hard, and even earlier glimmers—random cancer cures, promising results-in-mice, some drug that can marginally slow some subcomponent of aging (like what people hope rapamycin might be) -- will take time to show up and then get proven out and affect people’s views. Which again favors the forces of AI safety over e/Acc.
But on the other hand, it’s uncertain / hard to say. Maybe the idea that a new technology (“it’s just math!” it’s just computers!”) could truly have agency and pose an active threat to mankind, is just fundamentally bizarre to people, compared to the idea that a new technology could deliver a bunch of cancer cures or etc. (Normal people are not going to be aware of the crazy gompertz-curve fact about how even eliminating all cancer would only raise expected lifespans by like 2 years—many folks would probably perceive “we get a bunch of impressive cancer cures in short succession” as nearly equivalent to curing aging.) Or maybe some powerful group, like -- *checks twitter* -- whoever’s President of the United States, or CEO of Nvidia, or leader of whatever AI startup seems poised to make a lot of medical breakthroughs, decides to put a ton of effort into boosting this message.
Maybe the net effect of the two arguments fully entering the public consciousness is indeed favorable to AI safety. But a longevity + e/Acc preference cascade could still probably cause a lot of trouble—eg, further polarizing AI-related issues, perhaps enough to make a strong, coordinated, swift response to AI emergencies much more difficult.
Also agreed that if we’re already really close to RSI, all these considerations probably don’t matter very much. They seem more important in longer timelines (whether because AI development naturally still has a long way to go despite appearances, or because we successfully pace / pause development).
I think you’re going to need quite powerful AI to make serious progress on aging. In fact, what you’re really going to need is systemic tissue replacement, and those replacements are going to take time to grow.
I think that in turn makes it pretty likely we get bigger warning shots than we’ve gotten thus far.
My best guess is that results in net negative sentiment towards accelerationism. If you look at the general public’s answers to questions like “would you rather have a million dollars of a 50% chance of $100 million” and you’ll see that the average person is quite conservative. I’d be a little surprised if they want gamble on AI-enabled radical longevity if they think there’s a serious danger of AI job loss and/or death.
My bigger concern at the moment is that we might not get another warning shot because AI is become situationally aware enough to falsify logs. And we seem to be getting pretty close to RSI.
Agreed that people seem very conservative with respect to risk and disruption, and this probably tips the scales towards being fearful of AI rather than going full e/Acc. And furthermore, indeed—making “serious” progress on aging is probably really hard, and even earlier glimmers—random cancer cures, promising results-in-mice, some drug that can marginally slow some subcomponent of aging (like what people hope rapamycin might be) -- will take time to show up and then get proven out and affect people’s views. Which again favors the forces of AI safety over e/Acc.
But on the other hand, it’s uncertain / hard to say. Maybe the idea that a new technology (“it’s just math!” it’s just computers!”) could truly have agency and pose an active threat to mankind, is just fundamentally bizarre to people, compared to the idea that a new technology could deliver a bunch of cancer cures or etc. (Normal people are not going to be aware of the crazy gompertz-curve fact about how even eliminating all cancer would only raise expected lifespans by like 2 years—many folks would probably perceive “we get a bunch of impressive cancer cures in short succession” as nearly equivalent to curing aging.) Or maybe some powerful group, like -- *checks twitter* -- whoever’s President of the United States, or CEO of Nvidia, or leader of whatever AI startup seems poised to make a lot of medical breakthroughs, decides to put a ton of effort into boosting this message.
Maybe the net effect of the two arguments fully entering the public consciousness is indeed favorable to AI safety. But a longevity + e/Acc preference cascade could still probably cause a lot of trouble—eg, further polarizing AI-related issues, perhaps enough to make a strong, coordinated, swift response to AI emergencies much more difficult.
Also agreed that if we’re already really close to RSI, all these considerations probably don’t matter very much. They seem more important in longer timelines (whether because AI development naturally still has a long way to go despite appearances, or because we successfully pace / pause development).