Appreciate the many concrete examples you’re giving here.
Responding quickly.
I do not think the convincing versions of gradual disempowerment either rely on misalignment or result power concentration among humans for relatively common meaning of alignment roughly at the level “does what the developer wants and approves, resolving conflicts between their wants in a way which is not egregiously bad”. If “aligned” means something at the level “implements coherent extrapolated volition of humanity” or “solves AI safety” than yes.
Yep, that makes sense. And I disagree, so this is useful clarification.
I think that if AI “does what the developer wants and approves, resolving conflicts between their wants in a way which is not egregiously bad” then I am much less worried about GD than about power-seeking AI. (Though i have some uncertainty here if the AI is resolving these conflicts pretty badly but hiding the fact it’s doing this for some reason. But if it’s resolving these conflicts as well as fairly competent human would, i feel much less worried about GD than powre-seeking AI.)
It’s more than just index funds. It’s ppl getting AIs to invest on their behalf, just like VCs invest on ppl’s behalf today. It seems like we need fairly egregious misalignment for this to fail, no?
problems with stability of property rights: people in the US or UK often perceive them as very stable, but they depend on state enforcing them → state becomes a more load-bearing component of the system
Why is it more load bearing than today? Today it’s completely load bearing right? If income switches from wages to capital income, why does it become more load bearing? (I agree it becomes more load bearing when taxation is needed for ppl’s income—but many ppl will own capital so not need this)
having overwhelming cultural production power means setting consumer preference
Thanks, interesting point. Though humans will own/control the AIs producing culture, so they will still control this determinant of human preferences.
right-wing US twitter discourse is often influenced by anonymous accounts run by citizens of India and Pakistan; people running these accounts often have close to zero econ power, and their main source of income is the money they get for posts
Interesting. And you’re thinking that the analogy is that AIs will have no money but could have a big cultural influence? Makes sense. (Though again, those AIs will be owned/controlled by humans, somewhat breaking the analogy.)
Again, consider Musk
But the ideas that are bad for Musk and his thinking have generally decreased his power + influence, no? Overall he’s an exceptionally productive and competent person. If some cultural meme caused him to be constantly addicted to his phone, that wouldn’t be selected for culturally.
we assume institutional AIs will be aligned to institutions and institutional interests, not their nominal human representatives or principals
So what causes the govt AIs to be aligned to the state over the heads of office, to the extent where they disempower those humans? Why don’t those humans see it coming and adjust the AI’s goals? Or, if the AI is aligned to the state, why doesn’t it pursue the formal goals of the state like protecting it’s ppl?
I think that if AI “does what the developer wants and approves, resolving conflicts between their wants in a way which is not egregiously bad” then I am much less worried about GD than about power-seeking AI.
If the AI is that well-aligned, then presumably power-seeking AI is also not much of a problem, and you shouldn’t be that concerned about either?
Maybe you mean “if I assume that I don’t need to be worried about GD outside of the cases where AI “does what the developer wants and approves, resolving conflicts between their wants in a way which is not egregiously bad”, then I am overall much less worried about GD than about power-seeking AI”?
I’m hope it’s not presumptuous to respond on Jan’s behalf, but since he’s on vacation:
> It’s more than just index funds. It’s ppl getting AIs to invest on their behalf, just like VCs invest on ppl’s behalf today. It seems like we need fairly egregious misalignment for this to fail, no?
Today, in the U.S. and Canada, most people have no legal way to invest in OpenAI, Anthropic, or xAI, even if they have AI advisors. Is this due to misalignment, or just a mostly unintended outcome from consumer protection laws, and regulation disincentivizing IPOs?
> If income switches from wages to capital income, why does it become more load bearing?
Because the downside of a one-time theft is bounded if you can still make wages. If I lose my savings but can still work, I don’t starve. If I’m a pensioner and I lose my pension, maybe I do starve.
> humans will own/control the AIs producing culture, so they will still control this determinant of human preferences.
Why do humans already farm clickbait? It seems like you think many humans wouldn’t direct their AIs to make them money / influence by whatever means necessary. And it won’t necessarily be individual humans running these AIs, it’ll be humans who own shares of companies such as “Clickbait Spam-maxxing Twitter AI bot corp”, competing to produce the clickbaitiest content.
Today, in the U.S. and Canada, most people have no legal way to invest in OpenAI, Anthropic, or xAI, even if they have AI advisors. Is this due to misalignment, or just a mostly unintended outcome from consumer protection laws, and regulation disincentivizing IPOs?
Sorry if this is missing your point — but why would AIs of the future have a comparative advantage relative to humans, here? I would think that humans would have a much easier time becoming accredited investors and being able to invest in AI companies. (Assuming, as Tom does, that the humans are getting AI assistance and therefore are at no competence disadvantage.)
I was responding to “ppl getting AIs to invest on their behalf, just like VCs invest on ppl’s behalf today. It seems like we need fairly egregious misalignment for this to fail, no?”
I’m saying that one way that “humans live off index funds” fails, even today, is that it’s illegal for almost every human to participate in many of the biggest wealth creation events. You’re right that most AIs would probably also be barred from participating from most wealth creation events, but the ones that do (maybe by being hosted by, or part of, the new hot corporations) can scale / reproduce really quickly to double down on whatever advantage that they have from being in the inner circle.
You’re right that most AIs would probably also be barred from participating from most wealth creation events, but the ones that do (maybe by being hosted by, or part of, the new hot corporations) can scale / reproduce really quickly to double down on whatever advantage that they have from being in the inner circle.
I still don’t understand why the AIs that have access would be able to scale their influence more quickly than the AI-assisted humans who have the same access.
(Note that Tom never talked about index funds, just about humans investing their money with the help of AIs, which should allow them to stay competitive with AIs. You brought up one way in which some humans are restricted from investing their money, but IMO that constraint applies at least as strongly to AIs as to humans, so I just don’t get how it gives AIs a relative competitive advantage.)
Overall, i think this considerations favours economic power concentration among the humans who are legally allowed to invest in the most promising opportunities and have AI advisors to help them
And, conversely, this would would decrease the economic influence of other humans and AIs
Thanks!
Appreciate the many concrete examples you’re giving here.
Responding quickly.
Yep, that makes sense. And I disagree, so this is useful clarification.
I think that if AI “does what the developer wants and approves, resolving conflicts between their wants in a way which is not egregiously bad” then I am much less worried about GD than about power-seeking AI. (Though i have some uncertainty here if the AI is resolving these conflicts pretty badly but hiding the fact it’s doing this for some reason. But if it’s resolving these conflicts as well as fairly competent human would, i feel much less worried about GD than powre-seeking AI.)
It’s more than just index funds. It’s ppl getting AIs to invest on their behalf, just like VCs invest on ppl’s behalf today. It seems like we need fairly egregious misalignment for this to fail, no?
Why is it more load bearing than today? Today it’s completely load bearing right? If income switches from wages to capital income, why does it become more load bearing? (I agree it becomes more load bearing when taxation is needed for ppl’s income—but many ppl will own capital so not need this)
Thanks, interesting point. Though humans will own/control the AIs producing culture, so they will still control this determinant of human preferences.
Interesting. And you’re thinking that the analogy is that AIs will have no money but could have a big cultural influence? Makes sense. (Though again, those AIs will be owned/controlled by humans, somewhat breaking the analogy.)
But the ideas that are bad for Musk and his thinking have generally decreased his power + influence, no? Overall he’s an exceptionally productive and competent person. If some cultural meme caused him to be constantly addicted to his phone, that wouldn’t be selected for culturally.
So what causes the govt AIs to be aligned to the state over the heads of office, to the extent where they disempower those humans? Why don’t those humans see it coming and adjust the AI’s goals? Or, if the AI is aligned to the state, why doesn’t it pursue the formal goals of the state like protecting it’s ppl?
If the AI is that well-aligned, then presumably power-seeking AI is also not much of a problem, and you shouldn’t be that concerned about either?
Maybe you mean “if I assume that I don’t need to be worried about GD outside of the cases where AI “does what the developer wants and approves, resolving conflicts between their wants in a way which is not egregiously bad”, then I am overall much less worried about GD than about power-seeking AI”?
Thanks—yep that’s what i meant!
I’m hope it’s not presumptuous to respond on Jan’s behalf, but since he’s on vacation:
> It’s more than just index funds. It’s ppl getting AIs to invest on their behalf, just like VCs invest on ppl’s behalf today. It seems like we need fairly egregious misalignment for this to fail, no?
Today, in the U.S. and Canada, most people have no legal way to invest in OpenAI, Anthropic, or xAI, even if they have AI advisors. Is this due to misalignment, or just a mostly unintended outcome from consumer protection laws, and regulation disincentivizing IPOs?
> If income switches from wages to capital income, why does it become more load bearing?
Because the downside of a one-time theft is bounded if you can still make wages. If I lose my savings but can still work, I don’t starve. If I’m a pensioner and I lose my pension, maybe I do starve.
> humans will own/control the AIs producing culture, so they will still control this determinant of human preferences.
Why do humans already farm clickbait? It seems like you think many humans wouldn’t direct their AIs to make them money / influence by whatever means necessary. And it won’t necessarily be individual humans running these AIs, it’ll be humans who own shares of companies such as “Clickbait Spam-maxxing Twitter AI bot corp”, competing to produce the clickbaitiest content.
Sorry if this is missing your point — but why would AIs of the future have a comparative advantage relative to humans, here? I would think that humans would have a much easier time becoming accredited investors and being able to invest in AI companies. (Assuming, as Tom does, that the humans are getting AI assistance and therefore are at no competence disadvantage.)
I was responding to “ppl getting AIs to invest on their behalf, just like VCs invest on ppl’s behalf today. It seems like we need fairly egregious misalignment for this to fail, no?”
I’m saying that one way that “humans live off index funds” fails, even today, is that it’s illegal for almost every human to participate in many of the biggest wealth creation events. You’re right that most AIs would probably also be barred from participating from most wealth creation events, but the ones that do (maybe by being hosted by, or part of, the new hot corporations) can scale / reproduce really quickly to double down on whatever advantage that they have from being in the inner circle.
I still don’t understand why the AIs that have access would be able to scale their influence more quickly than the AI-assisted humans who have the same access.
(Note that Tom never talked about index funds, just about humans investing their money with the help of AIs, which should allow them to stay competitive with AIs. You brought up one way in which some humans are restricted from investing their money, but IMO that constraint applies at least as strongly to AIs as to humans, so I just don’t get how it gives AIs a relative competitive advantage.)
Overall, i think this considerations favours economic power concentration among the humans who are legally allowed to invest in the most promising opportunities and have AI advisors to help them
And, conversely, this would would decrease the economic influence of other humans and AIs