only adding one bit of sidedness seems like it is insufficient to describe the space of opinions in ways where further description is still needed. however, adding even a single bit of incorrect sidedness, or where one of the sides is one that we’d hope people don’t take, seems like it could have predictable bad consequences. hopefully the split is worth it. I do see this direction in the opinion space, I’m not sure if this split is enough part-of-the-original-generating-process-of-opinions to be worth it though.
I was “let’s build it before someone evil”, I’ve left that particular viewpoint behind since realizing how hard aligning it is. my thoughts on how to align it still tend to be aimed at trying to make camp A not kill us all, because I suspect camp B will fail, and our last line of defense will be maybe we get to figure out safety in time for camp A to not be delusional; I do see some maybe not hopeless paths but I’m pretty pessimistic that we get enough of our ducks in a row in time to hit the home run below par before the death star fires. but to the degree camp B has any shot at success, I participate in it too.
I was “let’s build it before someone evil”, I’ve left that particular viewpoint behind since realizing how hard aligning it is.
It was empirically infeasible (for the general AGI x-risk technical milieu) to explain this to you faster than you trying it for yourself, and one might have reasonably expected you to have been generally culturally predisposed to be open to having this explained to you. If this information takes so much energy and time to be gained, that doesn’t bode well for the epistemic soundness of whatever stance is currently being taken by the funder-attended vibe-consensus. How would you explain this to your past self much faster?
only adding one bit of sidedness seems like it is insufficient to describe the space of opinions in ways where further description is still needed. however, adding even a single bit of incorrect sidedness, or where one of the sides is one that we’d hope people don’t take, seems like it could have predictable bad consequences. hopefully the split is worth it. I do see this direction in the opinion space, I’m not sure if this split is enough part-of-the-original-generating-process-of-opinions to be worth it though.
I was “let’s build it before someone evil”, I’ve left that particular viewpoint behind since realizing how hard aligning it is. my thoughts on how to align it still tend to be aimed at trying to make camp A not kill us all, because I suspect camp B will fail, and our last line of defense will be maybe we get to figure out safety in time for camp A to not be delusional; I do see some maybe not hopeless paths but I’m pretty pessimistic that we get enough of our ducks in a row in time to hit the home run below par before the death star fires. but to the degree camp B has any shot at success, I participate in it too.
It was empirically infeasible (for the general AGI x-risk technical milieu) to explain this to you faster than you trying it for yourself, and one might have reasonably expected you to have been generally culturally predisposed to be open to having this explained to you. If this information takes so much energy and time to be gained, that doesn’t bode well for the epistemic soundness of whatever stance is currently being taken by the funder-attended vibe-consensus. How would you explain this to your past self much faster?