MV: No, they’re overwhelmingly obvious to a child. No one can tell you about things that are obvious to children. It is impossible to come to know them except by taking a lot of molly.
This is the closest this community has come to becoming a religion.
“You knew this when you were a child” is a common argument of Christian apologists; they claim you knew it intuitively and rejected it as a result of social pressure, and they’re trying to lead you back to the truth. (Whether or not it is the truth is a separate question.)
I don’t believe Vassar has asked a child what they thought of us making an AI that destroys the world (he doesn’t feel like that kind of man), and even if he had, that archetype is now abundant, so it would prove nothing.
A lot of obvious things are wrong. “Down” is a different direction in different places, or sometimes not defined at all. Trees are mostly made of air. Lightning is not thrown by a god out of the heavens. Being rational is about throwing those convictions out and taking small but sure steps towards truth (“updating your priors”), not claiming that you have it in your hands and what do you mean, you don’t see it!?
For an attempt to convey how AI risk is real and grounded, far too much of it was spent convincing Cade that something we wanted explained to the public did not have to be explained. Vassar led the conversation into an unrelated and undiplomatic aside on the NYT’s credibility, which was the only time in the session any AI was used and required another aside in order to choose one to the group’s satisfaction. This was not a good use of time or Cade’s goodwill.
My 9yo has the strongest opinions on this. She is against AI destroying the world and thinks we should instill a sense of loyalty in the AI to avoid this. So virtue-alignment, loyalty as a natural abstraction, extinction bad. She also thinks this should be pretty easy and is confused why nobody has solved the problem already. Other children differ, no doubt.
This is the closest this community has come to becoming a religion.
“You knew this when you were a child” is a common argument of Christian apologists; they claim you knew it intuitively and rejected it as a result of social pressure, and they’re trying to lead you back to the truth. (Whether or not it is the truth is a separate question.)
I don’t believe Vassar has asked a child what they thought of us making an AI that destroys the world (he doesn’t feel like that kind of man), and even if he had, that archetype is now abundant, so it would prove nothing.
A lot of obvious things are wrong. “Down” is a different direction in different places, or sometimes not defined at all. Trees are mostly made of air. Lightning is not thrown by a god out of the heavens. Being rational is about throwing those convictions out and taking small but sure steps towards truth (“updating your priors”), not claiming that you have it in your hands and what do you mean, you don’t see it!?
For an attempt to convey how AI risk is real and grounded, far too much of it was spent convincing Cade that something we wanted explained to the public did not have to be explained. Vassar led the conversation into an unrelated and undiplomatic aside on the NYT’s credibility, which was the only time in the session any AI was used and required another aside in order to choose one to the group’s satisfaction. This was not a good use of time or Cade’s goodwill.
My 9yo has the strongest opinions on this. She is against AI destroying the world and thinks we should instill a sense of loyalty in the AI to avoid this. So virtue-alignment, loyalty as a natural abstraction, extinction bad. She also thinks this should be pretty easy and is confused why nobody has solved the problem already. Other children differ, no doubt.