Master Computer Science, PHD candidate bioinformatics, transitioning to AI safety Governance&Stratety, (Insight) meditator ~ MCTB 3rd path
Benjamin Schmidt
Karma: 135
I don’t think that effective politics in this case requires deception and deception often backfires in unexpected ways.
Gabriel and Connor suggest in their interview that radical honesty—genuinely trusting politicians, advisors and average people to understand your argument and recognizing that they also don’t want to die from ASI—can be remarkably effective. The real problem may be that this approach is not attempted enough. I remember this as a slightly less but still positive datapoint https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2sLwt2cSAag74nsdN/speaking-to-congressional-staffers-about-ai-risk .
> If they have good political instincts, they’d probably have no desire to.
I can see that critique. I can also see something in the opposite direction where there is a giant “ugh field” around politics which we can dissolve for a lot of people who could be active in the space. We can both be honest and effective.
Luckily, we are in a world where most people already don’t like AI, they don’t like transhumanist ideas where they get killed to be replaced by AI, they don’t like to get killed in an ASI race, and they instinctively think intelligence smarter than them is dangerous.
Building the necessary coordination becomes significantly harder when deception is involved. MIRI’s public strategy as a reference:
1. Many other organizations are attempting the coalition-building, horse-trading, pragmatic approach. In private, many of the people who work at those organizations agree with us, but in public, they say the watered-down version of the message. We think there is a void at the candid end of the communication spectrum that we are well positioned to fill.
2. We think audiences are numb to politics as usual. They know when they’re being manipulated. We have opted out of the political theater, the [kayfabe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe), with all its posing and posturing. We are direct and blunt and honest, and we come across as exactly what we are.
3. Probably most importantly, we believe that “pragmatic” political speech won’t get the job done. The political measures we’re asking for are a big deal; nothing but the full unvarnished message will motivate the action that is required.
If minks are such a danger could we just make mink farming illegal?
The dangers absolutely don’t seem worth the gains.
However, part of that was about going from open research to closed.
Because of the strange loopy nature of concepts/language/self/different problems metaphilosophy seems unsolvable?
Asking: What is good? already implies that there are the concepts “good”, “what”, “being” that there are answers and questions … Now we could ask what concepts or questions to use instead …
Similarly:
> “What are all the things we can do with the things we have and what decision-making process will we use and why use that process if the character of the different processes is the production of different ends; don’t we have to know which end is desired in order to choose the decision-making process that also arrives at that result?”
> Which leads back to desire and knowing what you want without needing a system to tell you what you want.
It’s all empty in the Buddhist sense. It all depends on which concepts or turing machines or which physical laws you start with.
Because of the strange loopy nature of concepts/language/self/different problems metaphilosophy seems unsolvable?
Asking: What is good? already implies that there are the concepts “good”, “what”, “being” that there are answers and questions … Now we could ask what concepts or questions to use instead …
Similarly:
> “What are all the things we can do with the things we have and what decision-making process will we use and why use that process if the character of the different processes is the production of different ends; don’t we have to know which end is desired in order to choose the decision-making process that also arrives at that result?”
> Which leads back to desire and knowing what you want without needing a system to tell you what you want.
It’s all empty in the Buddhist sense. It all depends on which concepts or turing machines or which physical laws you start with.
but as far as I’ve seen, the correlation between stream entry and suffering is about 0; suffering is as likely to get better as it is to get worse.
I assume the correlation of 0 is hyperbolic. From what I have heard (and my own experience) it seems to reduce suffering. Ingram often mentions lots of people confusing the A&P with Streamentry and then of course afterwards they will be suffering more in the DN. The criteria he mentioned in the post also can’t necessarily separate between A&P and Streamentry so I am wondering how often that happens in his bubble. Especially when he then says second path almost always reduces suffering.
However, I could see the psychological things and suffering happen but I would want to see the data and environment in which it is happening. I will take his statement as a small update. I also know one person who had problems with DP/DR after their second path (though it was a weird one kind of getting them up in the seen there is only the seen).
> Ultimately, the only reason awakening is important is that it amplifies these characteristics, so I’d suggest – and I know you probably won’t like this, since you’re reading an article on awakening – that you ignore awakening and focus instead on the day-to-day (or maybe week-to-week) benefits of meditation.
As long as you tell them about the Dark Night and don’t tell them they have Streamentry after their A&P, that seems fine.
> So What Is Stream Entry Like? citing After the ecstasy the laundry
It more tells stories and vibes than anything detailed phenomenology and changes (maybe someone else could translate it into something more clear). I enjoyed the book for the stories though.I know there is at least one study by the EPRC happening on the effects of meditation on the sense of self (valenced positively or negatively) maybe we will get some data in the next years.
I would be >80% that in a typical pragmatic dharma setting Streamentry reduces suffering for >70% of people.
---
The guy is not my vibe so I looked for some positive things to think about him, he mentioned seeing the paradox constantly which is pretty cool and on his website he has some other people to contact if one is studying with him but feeling like there is something you can’t mention to him.
Thanks, for the answer(s). Watched the video as well, always cool to hear about other peoples journeys. If you want there is a discordserver (MD) with some pretty advanced practitioners (3rd/4th path) you and/or Kaj could join (for some data points or practice or fun, feels more useful than Dharmaoverground these days).
Not sure whether different enlightenment levels would be more recommendable for random people.
E.g. stream-entry might be relatively easy and helpful, but then there is a “risk” of spending the next years trying to get 2nd/3rd/4th. It’s such a transformative experience that it’s hard to predict on an individual level what the person will do afterwards.
Do you want to mention where on e.g. the MCTB (https://www.mctb.org/) maps you two would be? Just to get a perspective on your perspective.
It seems more likely to me that the Malawi people and everyone else will be killed at some point.
Currently the system still has to consider popular opinion to some degree. Killing all the Malavi people would not be efficient right now. When that incentive disappears enough, I would expect everyone else to get eliminated (All of this assumes incentive aligned AI which I wouldn’t expect). This goes in the direction the author was mentioning that the reason for moral progress is more about which societal structures are efficient not actual “moral” progress”.
If competition between humans persists I would expect the other last humans to disappear as well having to transfer all their power to survive the competition.