The only general remarks that I want to make are in regards to your question about the model of 150 year long vaccine testing on/over some sort of sample group and control group.
I notice that there is nothing exponential assumed about this test object, and so therefore, at most, the effects are probably multiplicative, if not linear. Therefore, there are lots of questions about power dynamics that we can overall safely ignore, as a simplification, which is in marked contrast to anything involving ASI.
If we assume, as you requested, “no side effects” observed, in any test group, for any of those things that we happened to be thinking of, to even look for, then for any linear system, that is probably “good enough”. But for something that is know for sure to be exponential, that by itself is not anywhere enough to feel safe.
But what does this really mean?
Since the common and prevailing (world) business culture is all about maximal profit, and therefore minimal cost, and also to minimize any possible future responsibility (or cost) in case anything with the vax goes badly/wrong, then for anything that might be in the possible category of unknown unknown risk, I would expect that company to want to maintain sort of some plausible deniability— ie; to not look so hard for never-before-seen effects. Or to otherwise ignore that they exist, or matter, etc. (just like throughout a lot of ASI risk dialogue).
If there is some long future problem that crops up, the company can say “we never looked for that” and “we are not responsible for the unexpected”, because the people who made the deployment choices have taken their profits and their pleasure in life, and are now long dead. “Not my Job”.
“Don’t blame us for the sins of our forefathers”. Similarly, no one is going to ever admit or concede any point, of any argument, on pain of ego death. No one will check if it is an exponential system.
So of course, no one is going to want to look into any sort of issues distinguishing the target effects, from the also occurring changes in world equilibrium. They will publish their glowing sanitized safety report, deploy the product anyway, regardless, and make money.
“Pollution in the world is a public commons problem”— so no corporation is held responsible for world states. It has become “fashionable” to ignore long term evolution, and to also ignore and deny everything about the ethics.
But this does not make the issue of ASI x-risk go away. X-risks are the generally result of exponential process, and so the vaccine example is not really that meaningful.
With the presumed ASI levels of actually exponential power, this is not so much about something like pollution, as it is about maybe igniting the world atmosphere, via a mistake in the calculations of the Trinity Test. Or are you going to deny that Castle Bravo is a thing?
Beyond this one point, my feeling is that your notions have become a bit too fanciful for me to want respond too seriously. You can, of course, feel free to continue to assume and presume whatever you want, and therefore reach whatever conclusions you want.
on/over some sort of sample group and control group.
I notice that there is nothing exponential assumed
about this test object, and so therefore, at most,
the effects are probably multiplicative, if not linear.
Therefore, there are lots of questions about power dynamics
that we can overall safely ignore, as a simplification,
which is in marked contrast to anything involving ASI.
If we assume, as you requested, “no side effects” observed,
in any test group, for any of those things
that we happened to be thinking of, to even look for,
then for any linear system, that is probably “good enough”.
I am not sure I understand the distinction between linear and exponential in the vaccine context. By linear do you mean that only few people die? By exponential do you mean that a lot of people die?
If so, then I am not so sure that vaccine effects could only be linear. For example, there might be some change in our complex environment that would prompt the vaccine to act differently than it did in the past.
More generally, our vaccine can lead to catastrophic outcomes if there is something about its future behavior that we didn’t predict. And if that turns out to be true, then things could go ugly really fast.
And the extent of the damage can be truly big. “Scientifically proven” cancer vaccine that passed the tests is like the holy grail of medicine. “Curing cancer” is often used by parents as an example of the great things their children could achieve. This is combined with the fact that cancer has been with us for a long time and the fact that the current treatment is very expensive and painful.
All of these factors combined tell us that in a relatively short period of time a large percentage of the total population will get this vaccine. At that point, the amount of damage that can be done only depends on what thing we overlooked, which we, by definition, have no control over.
If there is some long future problem that crops up,
the company can say “we never looked for that”
and “we are not responsible for the unexpected”,
because the people who made the deployment choices
have taken their profits and their pleasure in life,
and are now long dead. “Not my Job”.
“Don’t blame us for the sins of our forefathers”.
Similarly, no one is going to ever admit or concede
any point, of any argument, on pain of ego death.
This same excuse would surely be used by companies manufacturing the vaccine. They would argue that they shouldn’t be blamed for something that the researchers overlooked. They would say that they merely manufactured the product in order to prevent the needless suffering of countless people.
For all we know, by the time that the overlooked thing happens, the original researchers (who developed and tested the vaccine) are long dead, having lived a life of praise and glory for their ingenious invention (not to mention all the money that they received).
The only general remarks that I want to make
are in regards to your question about
the model of 150 year long vaccine testing
on/over some sort of sample group and control group.
I notice that there is nothing exponential assumed
about this test object, and so therefore, at most,
the effects are probably multiplicative, if not linear.
Therefore, there are lots of questions about power dynamics
that we can overall safely ignore, as a simplification,
which is in marked contrast to anything involving ASI.
If we assume, as you requested, “no side effects” observed,
in any test group, for any of those things
that we happened to be thinking of, to even look for,
then for any linear system, that is probably “good enough”.
But for something that is know for sure to be exponential,
that by itself is not anywhere enough to feel safe.
But what does this really mean?
Since the common and prevailing (world) business culture
is all about maximal profit, and therefore minimal cost,
and also to minimize any possible future responsibility
(or cost) in case anything with the vax goes badly/wrong,
then for anything that might be in the possible category
of unknown unknown risk, I would expect that company
to want to maintain sort of some plausible deniability—
ie; to not look so hard for never-before-seen effects.
Or to otherwise ignore that they exist, or matter, etc.
(just like throughout a lot of ASI risk dialogue).
If there is some long future problem that crops up,
the company can say “we never looked for that”
and “we are not responsible for the unexpected”,
because the people who made the deployment choices
have taken their profits and their pleasure in life,
and are now long dead. “Not my Job”.
“Don’t blame us for the sins of our forefathers”.
Similarly, no one is going to ever admit or concede
any point, of any argument, on pain of ego death.
No one will check if it is an exponential system.
So of course, no one is going to want to look into
any sort of issues distinguishing the target effects,
from the also occurring changes in world equilibrium.
They will publish their glowing sanitized safety report,
deploy the product anyway, regardless, and make money.
“Pollution in the world is a public commons problem”—
so no corporation is held responsible for world states.
It has become “fashionable” to ignore long term evolution,
and to also ignore and deny everything about the ethics.
But this does not make the issue of ASI x-risk go away.
X-risks are the generally result of exponential process,
and so the vaccine example is not really that meaningful.
With the presumed ASI levels of actually exponential power,
this is not so much about something like pollution,
as it is about maybe igniting the world atmosphere,
via a mistake in the calculations of the Trinity Test.
Or are you going to deny that Castle Bravo is a thing?
Beyond this one point, my feeling is that your notions
have become a bit too fanciful for me to want respond
too seriously. You can, of course, feel free to
continue to assume and presume whatever you want,
and therefore reach whatever conclusions you want.
Thanks for the reply!
I am not sure I understand the distinction between linear and exponential in the vaccine context. By linear do you mean that only few people die? By exponential do you mean that a lot of people die?
If so, then I am not so sure that vaccine effects could only be linear. For example, there might be some change in our complex environment that would prompt the vaccine to act differently than it did in the past.
More generally, our vaccine can lead to catastrophic outcomes if there is something about its future behavior that we didn’t predict. And if that turns out to be true, then things could go ugly really fast.
And the extent of the damage can be truly big. “Scientifically proven” cancer vaccine that passed the tests is like the holy grail of medicine. “Curing cancer” is often used by parents as an example of the great things their children could achieve. This is combined with the fact that cancer has been with us for a long time and the fact that the current treatment is very expensive and painful.
All of these factors combined tell us that in a relatively short period of time a large percentage of the total population will get this vaccine. At that point, the amount of damage that can be done only depends on what thing we overlooked, which we, by definition, have no control over.
This same excuse would surely be used by companies manufacturing the vaccine. They would argue that they shouldn’t be blamed for something that the researchers overlooked. They would say that they merely manufactured the product in order to prevent the needless suffering of countless people.
For all we know, by the time that the overlooked thing happens, the original researchers (who developed and tested the vaccine) are long dead, having lived a life of praise and glory for their ingenious invention (not to mention all the money that they received).