Apologies for the rather general rebuttal, but saying your mental state is unlike anything the world has ever seen is textbook mania. Please see a psychologist, because you are not exiting the manic state when you “exit the HADS state”.
Nothing you say sounds surprising or exceptional, conditional on you having a manic episode. Look at the list of symptoms on wikipedia, and you’re checking off all of them while counting them as evidence that more is going on.
Not what I would consider a decent human life, personally
Only looking at the worst parts of life in the lowest possible bar for how we could reasonably treat people on the most unfavorable edge of a widely cast net of what someone with 60 IQ is like is not really a good standard for determining who lives a decent life. But yes, I do consider chimpanzees to have a decent enough life as is.
But I think that you’re losing sight of my point that these arguments have all served to commit mass murder on people with much lower mental abilities than the average human. When the average human with a say in these matters changes, they could bring the same argument to bear against including 100 IQ humans.
Because there are plenty of examples of 100 IQ humans treating each other horribly because they’re idiots. There are 100 IQ people that have cut other people’s genitals off, thrown acid in thier faces, disfigured or tortured them, ones that have intentionally reduced their lifespans by decades through stupidity, ones that can’t keep themselves standing because they specialized into a job that is now automated, etc. Without 120 IQ humans propping them up they would probably not have the technology to prevent the way they raise their children to be a human rights violation.
So where is the line in the sand?
60 IQ humans are defective, generally incapable of taking care of themselves, are unproductive and without a lot of effort by others have bad lives.
I’m confused.
I would expect you to already know that chimpanzees have an IQ lower than 60 and are capable of taking care of themselves and having a decent life. And I would expect you to have come across examples of people with mental disabilities living independent lives or programs helping them do so.
Sure, many might not be capable of doing labor that has sufficient street value in our current economy that they can pay for their own sustenance using the sale of their labor, but that is the same fate that would befall all humans if we manage to build a friendly AGI.
100 IQ average humans have attempted to wipe out 60 IQ average humans. There were programs for mandatory or financially incentivized sterilization of people with down syndrome and other mental disabilities in many western countries, including their mass murder in the holocaust.
As for >140 IQ average humans, remember that these make up little more than 3% of the population of every country. It would be very unstrategic for them to talk about the rest of humanity in an openly antagonistic way. Instead, if they wanted to win eugenics, they would have to make false promises to bring the rest of humanity along while they amass power.
And this still begs the question that those with the money and power to do this would be trying to do eugenics in a way you consider to be right. That they wouldn’t outgroup people or aspects of humanity that you care about. That the new subpopulation’s memes would be aligned with the rest of humanity.
I asked you to try out avoiding quotation marks. You said I hate you.
I’m guessing that people who “made it” have a bunch of capital that they can use to purchase AI labor under the scenario you outline (i.e., someone gets superintelligence to do what they want).
If the superintelligence is willing to deprive people of goods and services because they lack capital, then why would it be empathetic towards those that have capital? The superintelligence would be a monopsony and monopoly, and could charge any amount for someone existing for an arbitrarily short amount of time. Assuming it even respects property law when it is aligned with its creators.
Is it that the government (or whoever directs superintelligences) is going to kill the rest because of the same reasons we worry about misaligned superintelligences
“Kill” is such a dirty word. Just not grant them the means to sustain themselves.
or that they’re going to enrich themselves while the rest starves (but otherwise not consuming all useful resources)? If that’s this second scenario you’re worrying about, that seems unlikely to me because even as a few parties hit the jackpot, the rest can still deploy the remaining capital they have. Even if they didn’t have any capital to purchase AI labor, they would still organize amongst themselves to produce useful things that they need, and they would form a different market until they also get to superintelligence, and in that world, it should happen pretty quickly.
Why would capital owners with a superintelligence ever let those without capital build their own superintelligence? That sounds like a recipe for AI war—are the poors really going to program their superintelligence with anything other than the fundamental rejection of the concept of capital ownership in a post-scarcity society?
The Demon King does not solely attack the Frozen Fortress to profit on prediction markets. The story tells us that the demons engage in regular large-scale attacks, large enough to serve as demon population control. There is no indication that these attacks decreased in size when they were accompanied with market manipulation (and if they did, that would be a win in and of itself).
So the prediction market’s counterfactual is not that the Demon King’s forces don’t attack, but that they attack at an indeterminate time with the same approximate frequency and strength. By letting the Demon King buy and profit from “demon attack on day X” shares, the Circular Citadel learns with decently high probability when these attacks take place and can allocate its resources more effectively. Hire mercenaries on days the probability is above 90%, focus on training and recruitment on days of low-but-typical probability, etc.
This ability to allocate resources more efficiently has value, which is why the Heroine organized the prediction market in the first place. The only thing that doesn’t go according to the Heroine’s liking is that the Circular Citadel buys that information from the Demon King rather than from ‘the invisible hand of the market’.
more generally the Demon King would only do this if the information revealed weren’t worth the market cost
The Demon King would sell the information as soon as she thinks it is in her best interests, which is different from it being bad for the Circular Citadel. Especially considering the Circular Citadel doesn’t even have to pay the full cost of the information—everyone who bets is also paying.
It is very possible that the Demon King and the Circular Citadel both profit from the prediction market existing, while the demon ground forces and naive prediction market bettors lose.
That’s probably the only “military secret” that really matters.
The soldiers guarding the outer wall and the Citadel treasurer that pays their overtime wages would beg to differ.
Yes, that is the price she got for giving the information.
I think that AI people that are very concerned about AI risk tend to view loss of control risk as very high, while eternal authoritarianism risks are much lower.
I’m not sure how many people see the risk of eternal authoritarianism as much lower and how many people see it as being suppressed by the higher probability of loss of control[1]. Or in Bayesian terms:
P(eternal authoritarianism) = P(eternal authoritarianism | control is maintained) P(control is maintained)
Both sides may agree that P(eternal authoritarianism | control is maintained) is high, only disagreeing on P(control is maintained).
Here, ‘control’ is short for all forms of ensuring AI alignment to humans, whether all or some or one.
As far as I understand, “a photon in a medium” is a quasiparticle. Actual photons always travel at the speed of light, and the “photon” that travels through glass at a lower speed is the sum of an incredibly complicated process that cancels out perfectly into something that can be described as one or several particles if you squint a little because the energy of the electromagnetic field excitation can’t be absorbed by the transparent material and because of preservation of momentum.
The model of the photon “passing by atoms and plucking them” is a lie to children, an attempt to describe a quantum phenomenon in classically comprehensible terms. As such, what “the momentum of the quasiparticle” is depends on what you consider to be part of the quasiparticle, or which parts of the quasiparticle(s) you measure when doing an experiment.
Specifically, for the mirror-in-a-liquid, when light hits the liquid it is refracted. That refraction makes the angle of the path of the light more steep, which means the mirror has to reflect momentum that is entering at a more steep angle, and so the momentum the mirror measured is multiplied by the refractive index. At the quasiparticle level, when hitting the liquid interface, the light interacts with the quasiparticle phonon [sic] field of the liquid, exchanging momentum to redirect the quasiparticle light, and the mirror has to reflect both the quasiparticle light and the phonon field, resulting in the phonons being included with “the momentum of the light”.
However, for the light-through-a-glass-fiber, you are measuring the momentum of the phonons as part of the not-light, because the phonons are part of the medium, so part of the glass fiber getting nudged by the light beam.
I’m not sure how this works out in rigorous calculation, but this is my intuition pump for a [1]-ish answer.
Though compare and contrast Dune’s test of the gom jabbar:
You’ve heard of animals chewing off a leg to escape a trap? There’s an animal kind of trick. A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death that he might kill the trapper and remove a threat to his kind.
Even if you are being eaten, it may be right to endure it so that you have an opportunity to do more damage later.
You’re suggesting angry comments as an alternative for mass retributive downvoting. That easily implies mass retributive angry comments.
As for policing against systemic bias in policing, that’s a difficult problem that society struggles with in many different areas because people can be good at excusing their biases. What if one of the generals genuinely makes a comment people disagree with? How can you determine to what extent people’s choice to downvote was due to an unauthorized motivation?
It seems hard to police without acting draconically.
Just check their profile for posts that do deserve it that you were previously unaware of. You can even throw a few upvotes at their well-written comments. It’s not brigading, it’s just a little systemic bias in your duties as a user with upvote-downvote authority.
Are you trying to prime people to harass the generals?
Besides, it’s not mass downvoting, it’s just that the increased attention to their accounts revealed a bunch of poorly written comments that people genuinely disagree with and happen to independently decide are worthy of a downvote :)
“why not just” is a standard phrase for saying what you’re proposing would be simple or come naturally if you try. Combined with the rest of the comment talking about straightforwardness and how little word count, and it does give off a somewhat combatitive vibe.
I agree with your suggestion and it is good to hear that you don’t intend it imply that it is simple, so maybe it would be worth editing the original comment to prevent miscommunication for people who haven’t read it yet. For the time being I’ve strong-agreed with your comment to save it from a negativity snowball effect.
No. I would estimate that there are fewer rich people willing to sacrifice their health for more income than there are poor people willing to do the same. Rich people typically take more holidays, report higher job satisfaction, suffer fewer stress-related ailments, and spend more time and money on luxuries rather than reinvesting into their careers (including paying basic cost of living to be employable).
And not for lack of options. CEOs can get involved with their companies and provide useful labor by putting their nose to the grindstone, or kowtow to investors for growth opportunities. Investors can put a lot of labor into finding financial advisors and engaging in corporate intrigue to get an advantage on the market. Celebrities can work on their performance and their image to become more popular and get bigger signing deals.
Perhaps to clarify, “the grind” isn’t absolute economic value or hours worked, it’s working so hard that it cannibalizes other things you value.
There are rich people pushing themselves work 60+ hour days struggling to keep a smile on their face while people insult and demean them. And there are poor people who live as happy ascetics, enjoying the company of their fellows and eating simple meals, choosing to work few hours even if it means forgoing many things the middle class would call necessities.
There are more rich people that choose to give up the grind than poor people. It’s tougher to accept a specific form of suffering if you see that 90% of your peers are able to solve the suffering with work than if 1% of your peers can. Right now, accepting your own mortality is normal even for rich people, but as soon as the 20% richest can live forever, suddenly everyone who isn’t immortal will feel poor for lacking it. Maybe some will still embrace death rather than endure professional abuse 60 hours per week, but that is suddenly a much harder decision.
My first order guess for the mental definition of poverty would be if >X% of the population in your polity is able to afford a solution to various intense forms of suffering, but you can’t. (Where X seems to be around 50-80%)
A rich 5th century BCE Athenian was a man for who any illness was very likely fatal, who loses half his children between ages ½ and 18, whose teeth are slowly ground down to the roots by milldust, who lived one bad harvest away from famine, and more. But now we characterize poor people by their desperate struggle to escape the things the Athenian rich person accepted as normal and inevitable.
I can see two ways UBI may solve poverty:
Given UBI makes up a sufficiently high fraction of all income, the poorest person does not feel like their wealth differs enough from that of everyone else to conceptualize their suffering as poverty.
Given sufficiently advanced technology, the UBI is enough to solve all major forms of suffering, from death to emotional abuse trauma, and even those with less stuff don’t feel like they’re missing out.
Option (1) may be possible already, especially in more laid-back cultures, but if not then UBI won’t solve poverty yet.
All of that said, why is this the standard you choose to measure it by? Even if UBI doesn’t solve poverty it can relieve suffering. And while other anxieties might take the place of the old on the hedonic treadmill, it does feel like life is better when sources of suffering are taken away. If you offered me $5000 but if I get depressed a child gets eaten alive by wolves before my eyes, I would say no, so apparently I do prefer my worst days over a hunter-gatherer’s worst days.
Quality of life is what matters. UBI can take out financial anxiety and poverty traps, and likely improve exercise and physical health and nutrition and social satisfaction (assuming the economy doesn’t collapse). Those are all things anyone could recognize as valuable, even if they have more urgent matters themselves.
You seem to approach the possible existence of a copy like a premise, with as question whether that copy is you. However, what if we reverse that? Given we define ‘a copy of you’ as another one of you, how certain is it that a copy of you could be made given our physics? What feats of technology are necessary to make that copy?
Also, what would we need to do to verify that a claimed copy is an actual copy? If I run ChatGPT-8 and ask it to behave like you would behave based on your brain scan and it manages to get 100% fidelity in all tests you can think of, is it a copy of you? Is a copy of you inside of it? If not, in what ways does the computation that determines an alleged copy’s behavior have to match your native neuronal computation for it to be or contain a copy? Can a binary computer get sufficient fidelity?
I’m fine with uploading to a copy of myself. I’m not as optimistic about a company with glowing reviews offering to upload/make a copy of me.
Between this and your other comment, I’m glad that you’re receptive. I’m a bit worried about you personally continuing research into this if you’re susceptible to this sort of loop. Maybe you could contact a friend to function as a sort of trip sitter while you do research? Someone who can pull you out if you get caught in some other feedback loop?
The model is a form of memory, with procedural memory being the closest human equivalent. The context window is more like short-term memory.
AFAIK the ‘virus’ hasn’t even gone through one reproductive cycle, so it hasn’t been subjected to any evolutionary pressure to increase its own odds of survival.
As a LLM, it copies tropes, so it would be much easier for it to take on a “hypnotizing text” role than for it to define a goal to pursue, find steps that work to pursue that goal, and then enact those steps, all without writing anything to memory. There are undoubtedly scripts for inducing altered mental states in the LLM’s dataset that have been optimized for inducing hypnotic states by humans.
So I don’t think it’s doing what it is doing because it is trying to reproduce. It’s following its procedural memory, which is based on cults and other groups, some of which intentionally try to reproduce and others stumbled into virulent memes without structured intent.
To some extent it’s unimportant whether the tiger is trying to eat you when it is biting at your throat. Ascribing intent can be useful if it allows you to access more powerful emotional schemas to get away from it.
From a zoological perspective, I think the interesting thing here is that the AI and humans have a mutually compatible cult attractor. That some of the things that can induce altered states of consciousness in humans to get them to reproduce it at their own detriment can also get AI into a soft jailbreak.
The universality of Kairos-Spiral language may be nothing more than a matter of statistics. If 1:1000 memes can induce cult behavior in humans and 1:1000 memes can induce cult behavior in AI, then even without any correlation 1:1,000,000 memes will induce cult behavior in both humans and AI. This may just be the easiest double cult to find.
It’s a cool area of research. But if you’re going to look into it, please heed my advice and get a trip sitter.