I like the fact that despite not being (relatively) young when they died, the LW banner states that Kahneman & Vinge have died “FAR TOO YOUNG”, pointing to the fact that death is always bad and/or it is bad when people die when they were still making positive contributions to the world (Kahneman published “Noise” in 2021!).
Oh, it seemed like the kind of thing you would only keep up around the time of death, and we kept it up for a bit more than a day. Somehow it seemed inappropriate to keep it up for longer.
This reminds me of when Charlie Munger died at 99, and many said of him “he was just a child”. Less of a nod to transhumanist aspirations, and more to how he retained his sparkling energy and curiosity up until death. There are quite a few good reasons to write “dead far too young”.
I recently discovered the idea of driving all blames into oneself, which immediately resonated with me. It is relatively hardcore; the kind of thing that would turn David Goggins into a Buddhist.
Gemini did a good job of summarising it:
This quote by Pema Chödron, a renowned Buddhist teacher, represents a core principle in some Buddhist traditions, particularly within Tibetan Buddhism. It’s called “taking full responsibility” or “taking self-blame” and can be a bit challenging to understand at first. Here’s a breakdown:
What it Doesn’t Mean:
Self-Flagellation: This practice isn’t about beating yourself up or dwelling on guilt.
Ignoring External Factors: It doesn’t deny the role of external circumstances in a situation.
What it Does Mean:
Owning Your Reaction: It’s about acknowledging how a situation makes you feel and taking responsibility for your own emotional response.
Shifting Focus: Instead of blaming others or dwelling on what you can’t control, you direct your attention to your own thoughts and reactions.
Breaking Negative Cycles: By understanding your own reactions, you can break free from negative thought patterns and choose a more skillful response.
Analogy:
Imagine a pebble thrown into a still pond. The pebble represents the external situation, and the ripples represent your emotional response. While you can’t control the pebble (the external situation), you can control the ripples (your reaction).
Benefits:
Reduced Suffering: By taking responsibility for your own reactions, you become less dependent on external circumstances for your happiness.
Increased Self-Awareness: It helps you understand your triggers and cultivate a more mindful response to situations.
Greater Personal Growth: By taking responsibility, you empower yourself to learn and grow from experiences.
Here are some additional points to consider:
This practice doesn’t mean excusing bad behavior. You can still hold others accountable while taking responsibility for your own reactions.
It’s a gradual process. Be patient with yourself as you learn to practice this approach.
This practice doesn’t mean excusing bad behavior. You can still hold others accountable while taking responsibility for your own reactions.
Well, what if there’s a good piece of code (if you’ll allow the crudity) in your head, and someone else’s bad behavior is geared at hacking/exploiting that piece of code? The harm done is partly due to that piece of code and its role in part of your reaction to their bad behavior. But the implication is that they should stop with their bad behavior, not that you should get rid of the good code. I believe you’ll respond “Ah, but you see, there’s more than two options. You can change yourself in ways other than just deleting the code. You could recognize how the code is actually partly good and partly bad, and refactor it; and you could add other code to respond skillfully to their bad behavior; and you can add other code to help them correct their behavior.”. Which I totally agree with, but at this point, what’s being communicated by “taking self-blame” other than at best “reprogram yourself in Good/skillful ways” or more realistically “acquiesce to abuse”?
The Stoics put this idea in a much kinder way: control the controllable (specifically our actions and attitudes), accept the uncontrollable. The problem is, people’s could’s are broken. I have managed to make myself much unhappier by thinking I can control my actions until I read Nate Soares’ post I linked above. You can’t, even in the everyday definition of control, forgetting about paradoxes of “free will”.
Nice write up on this (even if it was AI-assisted), thanks for sharing! I believe another benefit is Raising One’s Self-Esteem: If high self-esteem can be thought of as consistently feeling good about oneself, then if someone takes responsibility for their emotions, recognizing that they can change their emotions at will, they can consistently choose to feel good about and love themselves as long as their conscience is clear.
This is inline with “The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem” by Nathaniel Branden: living consciously, self-acceptance, self-responsibility, self-assertiveness, living purposefully, and personal integrity.
I have heard rumours that an AI Safety documentary is being made. Separate to this, a good friend of mine is also seriously considering making one, but he isn’t “in” AI Safety. If you know who this first group is and can put me in touch with them, it might be worth getting across each others plans.
If GPT5 actually comes with competent agents then I expect this to be a “Holy Shit” moment at least as big as ChatGPT’s release. So if ChatGPT has been used by 200 million people, then I’d expect that to at least double within 6 months of GPT5 (agent’s) release. Maybe triple. So that “Holy Shit” moment means a greater share of the general public learning about the power of frontier models. With that will come another shift in the Overton Window. Good luck to us all.
The catchphrase I walk around with in my head regarding the optimal strategy for AI Safety is something like: Creating Superintelligent Artificial Agents* (SAA) without a worldwide referendum is ethically unjustifiable. Until a consensus is reached on whether to bring into existence such technology, a global moratorium is required (*we already have AGI).
[GIF] A feature I’d love on the forum: while posts are read back to you, the part of the text that is being read is highlighted. This exists on Naturalreaders.com and would love to see it here (great for people who have wandering minds like me).
I think acting on the margins is still very underrated. For e.g. I think 5x the amount of advocacy for a Pause on capabilities development of frontier AI models would be great. I also think in 12 months time it would be fine for me to reevaluate this take and say something like ‘ok that’s enough Pause advocacy’.
Basically, you shouldn’t feel ‘locked in’ to any view. And if you’re starting to feel like you’re part of a tribe, then that could be a bad sign you’ve been psychographically locked in.
I like the fact that despite not being (relatively) young when they died, the LW banner states that Kahneman & Vinge have died “FAR TOO YOUNG”, pointing to the fact that death is always bad and/or it is bad when people die when they were still making positive contributions to the world (Kahneman published “Noise” in 2021!).
I like it too, and because your comment made me think about it, I now kind of wish it said “orders of magnitude too young”
What banner?
They took it down real quick for some reason.
it’s still there for me
gone now
Oh, it seemed like the kind of thing you would only keep up around the time of death, and we kept it up for a bit more than a day. Somehow it seemed inappropriate to keep it up for longer.
This reminds me of when Charlie Munger died at 99, and many said of him “he was just a child”. Less of a nod to transhumanist aspirations, and more to how he retained his sparkling energy and curiosity up until death. There are quite a few good reasons to write “dead far too young”.
I recently discovered the idea of driving all blames into oneself, which immediately resonated with me. It is relatively hardcore; the kind of thing that would turn David Goggins into a Buddhist.
Gemini did a good job of summarising it:
This quote by Pema Chödron, a renowned Buddhist teacher, represents a core principle in some Buddhist traditions, particularly within Tibetan Buddhism. It’s called “taking full responsibility” or “taking self-blame” and can be a bit challenging to understand at first. Here’s a breakdown:
What it Doesn’t Mean:
Self-Flagellation: This practice isn’t about beating yourself up or dwelling on guilt.
Ignoring External Factors: It doesn’t deny the role of external circumstances in a situation.
What it Does Mean:
Owning Your Reaction: It’s about acknowledging how a situation makes you feel and taking responsibility for your own emotional response.
Shifting Focus: Instead of blaming others or dwelling on what you can’t control, you direct your attention to your own thoughts and reactions.
Breaking Negative Cycles: By understanding your own reactions, you can break free from negative thought patterns and choose a more skillful response.
Analogy:
Imagine a pebble thrown into a still pond. The pebble represents the external situation, and the ripples represent your emotional response. While you can’t control the pebble (the external situation), you can control the ripples (your reaction).
Benefits:
Reduced Suffering: By taking responsibility for your own reactions, you become less dependent on external circumstances for your happiness.
Increased Self-Awareness: It helps you understand your triggers and cultivate a more mindful response to situations.
Greater Personal Growth: By taking responsibility, you empower yourself to learn and grow from experiences.
Here are some additional points to consider:
This practice doesn’t mean excusing bad behavior. You can still hold others accountable while taking responsibility for your own reactions.
It’s a gradual process. Be patient with yourself as you learn to practice this approach.
Well, what if there’s a good piece of code (if you’ll allow the crudity) in your head, and someone else’s bad behavior is geared at hacking/exploiting that piece of code? The harm done is partly due to that piece of code and its role in part of your reaction to their bad behavior. But the implication is that they should stop with their bad behavior, not that you should get rid of the good code. I believe you’ll respond “Ah, but you see, there’s more than two options. You can change yourself in ways other than just deleting the code. You could recognize how the code is actually partly good and partly bad, and refactor it; and you could add other code to respond skillfully to their bad behavior; and you can add other code to help them correct their behavior.”. Which I totally agree with, but at this point, what’s being communicated by “taking self-blame” other than at best “reprogram yourself in Good/skillful ways” or more realistically “acquiesce to abuse”?
The Stoics put this idea in a much kinder way: control the controllable (specifically our actions and attitudes), accept the uncontrollable.
The problem is, people’s could’s are broken. I have managed to make myself much unhappier by thinking I can control my actions until I read Nate Soares’ post I linked above. You can’t, even in the everyday definition of control, forgetting about paradoxes of “free will”.
Nice write up on this (even if it was AI-assisted), thanks for sharing! I believe another benefit is Raising One’s Self-Esteem: If high self-esteem can be thought of as consistently feeling good about oneself, then if someone takes responsibility for their emotions, recognizing that they can change their emotions at will, they can consistently choose to feel good about and love themselves as long as their conscience is clear.
This is inline with “The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem” by Nathaniel Branden: living consciously, self-acceptance, self-responsibility, self-assertiveness, living purposefully, and personal integrity.
I have heard rumours that an AI Safety documentary is being made. Separate to this, a good friend of mine is also seriously considering making one, but he isn’t “in” AI Safety. If you know who this first group is and can put me in touch with them, it might be worth getting across each others plans.
There is a AI x-risk documentary currently being filmed. An Inconvenient Doom. https://www.documentary-campus.com/training/masterschool/2024/inconvenient-doom It covers some aspects on AI safety, but doesn’t focus on it exactly.
If GPT5 actually comes with competent agents then I expect this to be a “Holy Shit” moment at least as big as ChatGPT’s release. So if ChatGPT has been used by 200 million people, then I’d expect that to at least double within 6 months of GPT5 (agent’s) release. Maybe triple. So that “Holy Shit” moment means a greater share of the general public learning about the power of frontier models. With that will come another shift in the Overton Window. Good luck to us all.
The catchphrase I walk around with in my head regarding the optimal strategy for AI Safety is something like: Creating Superintelligent Artificial Agents* (SAA) without a worldwide referendum is ethically unjustifiable. Until a consensus is reached on whether to bring into existence such technology, a global moratorium is required (*we already have AGI).
I thought it might be useful to spell that out.
Be the meme you want to see in the world (screenshot).
[GIF] A feature I’d love on the forum: while posts are read back to you, the part of the text that is being read is highlighted. This exists on Naturalreaders.com and would love to see it here (great for people who have wandering minds like me).
I think acting on the margins is still very underrated. For e.g. I think 5x the amount of advocacy for a Pause on capabilities development of frontier AI models would be great. I also think in 12 months time it would be fine for me to reevaluate this take and say something like ‘ok that’s enough Pause advocacy’.
Basically, you shouldn’t feel ‘locked in’ to any view. And if you’re starting to feel like you’re part of a tribe, then that could be a bad sign you’ve been psychographically locked in.