I try to reward posts I like with thoughtful commentary/disagreement, but there’s a sense in which this post doesn’t want to continue an existing spiraling thought pattern, it wants me to go out and do whatever I want to after putting that down.
After reading the other comments, I’ll at least add in the datapoint that I have experienced a ton of “ruminating-about-AI-risk-strategy-as-escapism” in my life, and being able to not do that has been a pretty key step in actually making progress on the problem.
When I remember back to those times when I was trapped in it (not saying I don’t still indulge from time to time), I think I would have found this post quite scary to engage with, because a lot of my social security was wrapped up in being the sort of person who would do that. I would be socially scared to put it down.
My solution was very rarely to introspect on it and fight the fight directly, as I feel like is a likely takeaway from this post; that’s something I could only do when the force was weak and rival forces were strong. I think a basic element involved me becoming more socially stable in other ways. I think another basic element was noticing that my overall life strategy wasn’t working and was instead hurting me. I took some more hardline strategies to deal with that, (more like Odysseus tying himself to the mast than Odysseus coming to internal peace with his struggle), and then I practiced other modes of being.
At this point I’ve realized I do have something to opine about, and I’m 4 paragraphs in so I’ll let myself: I think a point missing in the OP and the comments is that sometimes the addiction is useful. I find it hard to concisely make this point, but I think many people are addicted to things that they’re good at, be it competitions or artistic creations or mathematics. I’m not saying there’s an easy tradeoff, and I’m certainly not saying that all addicts will probably end up being good at the thing their addicted to (e.g. gambling addicts). But neither can I say they never are.
And I’ll admit you need a certain level of self-awareness to make the honest assessment for your particular case. Yes requires the possibility of no. If you could not put down your addiction, then you could not really say you are choosing it for the greater good, because you did not make the choice at all.
I really like your contribution here. It’s a great addition. Thank you.
I think many people are addicted to things that they’re good at, be it competitions or artistic creations or mathematics. I’m not saying there’s an easy tradeoff, and I’m certainly not saying that all addicts will probably end up being good at the thing their addicted to (e.g. gambling addicts). But neither can I say they never are.
I think I see what you’re pointing at. Something like… addictions can bring someone to cultivate something that (a) was very worth cultivating and (b) might have never been cultivated save for the addiction. Yes?
I agree.
I also think it’s worth tracking why (b) happens. If you can tell something is worth cultivating, why isn’t that enough?
I’m guessing that part of the issue is the cultural milieu we’re in (globally, not just LW). The incentives are loosely toward productivity and action. Taking the time to pay off psycho-emotional technical debt often comes with a lot of shame or inadequacy or fear.
So in that environment, it makes sense to get the goods directly, even if it incurs more technical debt.
One problem I’m tracking is… well, the metaphors get messy, but I’ll dive ahead anyway: Too much technical debt creates a kind of memetic environment that breeds things with survival instincts, and those things like protecting their tech-debt environment.
So on net, globally, I think it’s actually worthwhile to let some potential Olympic athletes fail to realize their potential if it means we collectively have more psychic breathing room.
And AFAICT, getting more shared breathing room is the main hope we have for addressing the real thing.
(…acknowledging that Eliezer (and surely others too) explicitly disagrees with me on this point.)
So on net, globally, I think it’s actually worthwhile to let some potential Olympic athletes fail to realize their potential if it means we collectively have more psychic breathing room.
And AFAICT, getting more shared breathing room is the main hope we have for addressing the real thing.
I think this is your most general and surprising claim, and I’ll hereby encourage you to write a post presenting arguments for it (ideally in a different style to the mildly pschyoactive post above, but not necessarily). I’m not sure to what extent I agree with your claim (I currently veer from 20% to 80% as I think about it) and I have some hope that if you wrote out some of the reasons that led to you believing it, it would help me make up my own mind a bit better.
Invitation noted. I’m open to it. I make no promises. But I like the curiosity and I’d love for what I’m seeing to land for more people and have more eyes on it.
Something like… addictions can bring someone to cultivate something that (a) was very worth cultivating and (b) might have never been cultivated save for the addiction. Yes?
Great post, thanks for writing it.
I try to reward posts I like with thoughtful commentary/disagreement, but there’s a sense in which this post doesn’t want to continue an existing spiraling thought pattern, it wants me to go out and do whatever I want to after putting that down.
After reading the other comments, I’ll at least add in the datapoint that I have experienced a ton of “ruminating-about-AI-risk-strategy-as-escapism” in my life, and being able to not do that has been a pretty key step in actually making progress on the problem.
When I remember back to those times when I was trapped in it (not saying I don’t still indulge from time to time), I think I would have found this post quite scary to engage with, because a lot of my social security was wrapped up in being the sort of person who would do that. I would be socially scared to put it down.
My solution was very rarely to introspect on it and fight the fight directly, as I feel like is a likely takeaway from this post; that’s something I could only do when the force was weak and rival forces were strong. I think a basic element involved me becoming more socially stable in other ways. I think another basic element was noticing that my overall life strategy wasn’t working and was instead hurting me. I took some more hardline strategies to deal with that, (more like Odysseus tying himself to the mast than Odysseus coming to internal peace with his struggle), and then I practiced other modes of being.
At this point I’ve realized I do have something to opine about, and I’m 4 paragraphs in so I’ll let myself: I think a point missing in the OP and the comments is that sometimes the addiction is useful. I find it hard to concisely make this point, but I think many people are addicted to things that they’re good at, be it competitions or artistic creations or mathematics. I’m not saying there’s an easy tradeoff, and I’m certainly not saying that all addicts will probably end up being good at the thing their addicted to (e.g. gambling addicts). But neither can I say they never are.
And I’ll admit you need a certain level of self-awareness to make the honest assessment for your particular case. Yes requires the possibility of no. If you could not put down your addiction, then you could not really say you are choosing it for the greater good, because you did not make the choice at all.
I really like your contribution here. It’s a great addition. Thank you.
I think I see what you’re pointing at. Something like… addictions can bring someone to cultivate something that (a) was very worth cultivating and (b) might have never been cultivated save for the addiction. Yes?
I agree.
I also think it’s worth tracking why (b) happens. If you can tell something is worth cultivating, why isn’t that enough?
I’m guessing that part of the issue is the cultural milieu we’re in (globally, not just LW). The incentives are loosely toward productivity and action. Taking the time to pay off psycho-emotional technical debt often comes with a lot of shame or inadequacy or fear.
So in that environment, it makes sense to get the goods directly, even if it incurs more technical debt.
One problem I’m tracking is… well, the metaphors get messy, but I’ll dive ahead anyway: Too much technical debt creates a kind of memetic environment that breeds things with survival instincts, and those things like protecting their tech-debt environment.
So on net, globally, I think it’s actually worthwhile to let some potential Olympic athletes fail to realize their potential if it means we collectively have more psychic breathing room.
And AFAICT, getting more shared breathing room is the main hope we have for addressing the real thing.
(…acknowledging that Eliezer (and surely others too) explicitly disagrees with me on this point.)
I think this is your most general and surprising claim, and I’ll hereby encourage you to write a post presenting arguments for it (ideally in a different style to the mildly pschyoactive post above, but not necessarily). I’m not sure to what extent I agree with your claim (I currently veer from 20% to 80% as I think about it) and I have some hope that if you wrote out some of the reasons that led to you believing it, it would help me make up my own mind a bit better.
Here you go.
Very cool. I look forward to reading it.
Invitation noted. I’m open to it. I make no promises. But I like the curiosity and I’d love for what I’m seeing to land for more people and have more eyes on it.
Yes.