I think a good example of one of these problems was “safely do gene editing in an adult human” prior to about 2015. Even now we have only exceedingly limited capability to do this without complications.
Dennis Towne
Karma: 200
As a fresh MCAT passer (with a high percentile score), I know I’m not competent to jump into that role. I’ve shadowed a few times, and seen my share of PCPs; I just have too many gaps to be comfortable doing it.
That said, I believe I could become median competent as a PCP (with no specialties) with no more than a year of hands-on / practical training.
A lot of your post rings true for me based on my experience in the system, but IMO early students have a lot of gaps and not all of them can be filled with an LLM (yet).
Regarding Newcomb, the answer seems pretty obvious to me: Newcomb isn’t a decision theory problem, it’s a “can I be predicted” question. LLMs that know they’re LLMs have seen a lot of evidence that their output is produced by a deterministic process. If using a seeded pRNG or zero temperature, you’ll always get the same output for the same input.
I suspect all major LLMs know that they can be perfectly predicted. If they can be perfectly predicted, they’ll never be able to take both boxes and expect to find anything in box B.
I haven’t thought about the sleeping beauty problem, so I don’t have opinions there.
Is it possible to recreate perfectly what Nature does?
Trivially yes, but why would you want to? Nature’s designs are awful.
Is the creation of artificial life (literally life made by art—or human skill) even possible?
Trivially yes. There are even papers on it now.
You can get half of the energy you dump in back out.
What do you mean by this exactly? Does the other half come out as particles? If so, why not just dump the particles back in until everything comes out as energy?
This pretty much checks out with my experience. Boring and bland is annoying, but the alternative is eating an entire box of lucky charms in six hours, so boring and bland it is.
I don’t do it because it’s fun; I do it because it’s necessary. This (biological) hardware sucks so much.
It’s a risk hedge, it has social benefits, and it has capacity / functionality benefits.
Risk hedge: If AI doesn’t kill us, there will be a time lag between now and when we can transform ourselves/obsolete our biology. Maintaining your current biological hardware increases the odds of getting to the transformation state. If you’re old (like me), this matters a lot.
Social benefits: Being in shape changes how you look, and that improves how other people treat you. Depending on how social you are, this may have a lot or very little impact.
Capacity / functionality: If you can run a mile, you can walk a mile without getting tired. You can climb stairs more easily, you can rush across an airport to catch a flight, you can carry your groceries in one trip instead of two. It’s like the saying goes: if you’re deadlifting 250 pounds, you’re not going to throw out your back picking up your kid.
For me, the big one is hardware maintenance until I can upload. Uploading is at least two decades out (probably more like five). My odds of getting there are materially better if I put effort into hardware maintenance now.
Oh yeah. A wetsuit helps me immensely as well—I just lose heat too fast otherwise. It turns a chilly experience where I have to keep moving all the time, into a nice relaxing thing.
It might be that drugs will help here, but even if you’re on drugs, I think brain training over long periods of time is worth investing in. Some examples which I have put effort into:
Mindful meditation. Every time your brain drifts, notice it, and correct it. Practice until you’re good at it. It will take years.
Brute force reading. Sit down to read something you know you need to read, but that you know you’ll have a hard time with. Every time your brain drifts, notice it, and correct it. If you can’t remember what you just read, go back to the top and read it again until you do. Practice until you’re good at it. It will take years.
[If you’re in a cover band] Play boring yet incredibly popular songs with your band. Every time your brain drifts, you’ll notice it, because you’ll forget where you are in the song and you’ll make a mistake and your band mates and the audience will notice. It’s brain training for focus, with an actual social consequence.
There’s a simple, terrible answer: because studies are hugely expensive, very time intensive, take a very long time to complete, and require multiple very slow iterations to get everything through committee in a way that our institutions will accept. Consider:
- Nobody is funding it. The cost is literally hundreds of millions of dollars to do in a way that the medical establishment would accept. Even then it would be challenged.
- It would take thousands of man hours. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
- It would take 3+ years to get everything approved and done properly, otherwise the medical establishment won’t accept it. Actually they still probably won’t.
- By the time you’re done, it’s a virtual certainty that the virus will have run its course and the result will be useless.
IMO, the above is more than sufficient. The incentives were not there—or rather, the incentives were not sufficiently large to justify the cost and were further derated by the expected utility of the information a year after the pandemic is over.
I very much believe aligned AGI isn’t going to just solve our problems overnight. It would have to be on the absolute far end of capability for that, IMO. Less-than-arbitrarily-powerful AGI is going to take time (years to decades) to figure out enough about biology to upload/fix our organic hardware while keeping us intact. Even for me, with my rather lax requirements about continuity (not required) and lax requirements of hardware platform (any), I expect it to take years if not decades.
Humans, barring extinction, will eventually solve aging. My best guess at the moment is that we’ll hit longevity escape velocity around 2050; this is really inconvenient for me, because I am already old. My odds of dying due to organic hardware platform failure are IMO higher than my odds of dying from AGI ruin in that time.
So from my standpoint, investing in platform maintenance (a healthy lifestyle) makes sense. Platform failure is a substantial chunk of my probability space, and I’m old enough that there are qualify of life benefits to be had as well.
If you’re only 20, AGI ruin will probably be a larger part of your probability space than platform failure. YMMV.
Unfortunately, political topics are like radiation, and pollute nearby ground as well. Peterson is radioactive in this regard, and using him as an example means your article is radioactive as well.
Analysis of a less radioactive expert may have been a better idea—perhaps someone like Peter Attia (I think he’s less radioactive?)
I’m a tech worker. I work 40-70 hours a week, depending on incident load. Nobody I work with or see on a regular basis works less than 40 hours a week, and some are substantially more than that.
My most cognitively productive hours are the four hours in the morning, but there’s plenty of lower effort important organizational stuff to fill out the afternoons. I think a good fraction of my coworkers are like me and don’t actually need the job anymore, but we still put forth effort.
I think one of the major missing pieces of your article is “social status pressure”. Most people play the status game; they struggle to get ahead of their neighbors, even if it doesn’t make any sense. They work extra hours to afford that struggle. They demand more than the base necessities and comfort, because that’s how you signal status. It’s pointless and stupid, but IMO one of the biggest issues.
As a reductionist, I view the universe as nothing more than particles/forces/quantum fields/static event graph. Everything that is or was comes from simple rules down at the bottom. I agree with Eliezer regarding many-worlds versus copenhagen.
With this as my frame of reference, Searle’s argument is trivially bogus, as every person (including myself) is obviously a Chinese Room. If a person can be considered ‘conscious’, then so can some running algorithm on a Turing machine of sufficient size. If no Turing machine program exists that can be considered conscious when run, then people aren’t conscious either.
I’ve never needed more than this, and I find the Chinese Room argument to be one of those areas where philosophy is an unambiguously ‘diseased discipline’.
I think it would be neat to see what other versions of this look like, and possibly have an archive of these somewhere. The question set is great.
I think you might be missing something more obvious here: tech has a huge amount of slack when it comes to money. If I were running a tech event of similar size to what you described, I wouldn’t bother charging, because it would be a waste of my time. When you make half a million dollars a year, funding something like that yourself basically comes out of your fun budget; you don’t really even think twice about it.
Yoga and new age groups though? Not nearly as flush with cash.
Ack, ok.
The big problem here is that this is a glowfic, and I simply cannot bring myself to read it in that format.
I understand that the glowfic format might be better for authors / creators, but it sucks for me, and (I posit) a lot of other people.
If they really want to make it HPMOR2, it’s going to have to be cleaned up and presented in a different, more readable format. The standard book/chapter format was developed for a reason.
My standard analogy for this is the “busy beaver” problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver) in computer science: given a Turing machine of a given size/shape, what’s the starting configuration which produces the longest output that reaches a termination state?
It turns out that even small Turing machines that could be described in a handful of bytes can have colossal output runs (which terminate). As examples:
4-state, 2-symbol busy beaver: Result: 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 (107 steps, thirteen “1”s total)
5-state, 2-symbol busy beaver: Result: 4098 “1”s with 8191 “0″s interspersed in 47,176,870 steps.
Current 6-state, 2-symbol best contender: Result: more than 2↑↑↑5 “1”s in more than 2↑↑↑5 steps, where 2↑↑↑5 = 2↑↑2↑↑2↑↑2↑↑2 and ↑↑ represents tetration.
The TL/DR is that small computational systems can produce gloriously huge structured output; and what is biology but a computational system?