Exactly, it has always felt wrong to me to treat being “me” as a random sample of observers. I couldn’t be anyone except me. If the future has trillions of humans or no humans, the person which is me will feel the same way in either case. I find the doomsday argument absurd because it treats my perspective as a random sample, which feels like a type error.
Eccentricity
This random Twitter person says that it can’t. Disclaimer: haven’t actually checked for myself.
https://chat.openai.com/share/36c09b9d-cc2e-4cfd-ab07-6e45fb695bb1
Here is me playing against GPT-4, no vision required. It does just fine at normal tic-tac-toe, and figures out anti-tic-tac-toe with a little bit of extra prompting.
Yeah. I think a key point that is often overlooked is that even if powerful AI is technically controllable, i.e. we solve inner alignment, that doesn’t mean society will handle it safely. I think by default it looks like every company and military is forced to start using a ton of AI agents (or they will be outcompeted by someone else who does). Competition between a bunch of superhuman AIs that are trying to maximize profits or military tech seems really bad for us. We might not lose control all at once, but rather just be gradually outcompeted by machines, where “gradually” might actually be pretty quick. Basically, we die by Moloch.
I am a literal freshman, and not feeling super optimistic about the future right now. How should I think about how to spend my time?
The thing I mean by “superintelligence” is very different from a government. A government cannot design nanotechnology, and is made of humans which value human things.
I think the claim that we basically understand the universe is misleading. I’m especially unconvinced by your vague explanation of consciousness; I don’t think we have anything close to an empirically supported mechanistic model that makes good predictions. I personally have significant uncertainty regarding what kinds of things can have subjective experiences, or why they do.
This also feels like a good opportunity to say that the Doomsday argument has never made much sense to me; it has always felt wrong to me to treat being “me” as a random sample of observers. I couldn’t be anyone except me. If the future has trillions of humans or no humans, the person which is me will feel the same way in either case. I can’t possibly condition on being me, because I couldn’t be anyone else. The doomsday argument treats my perspective as a random sample of all possible humans, or even all possible observers, which feels like a massive type error.
On a similar note, why is it remotely surprising that we live in a universe with laws of physics that support our existence? We couldn’t possibly observe any laws of physics except the ones we have. Does it even make sense to say that the laws of physics “could be different”? I’m not convinced we can even imagine a coherent universe with different fundamental laws of physics, in the same way that I can’t imagine what it would mean to live in a universe where the circle constant is something other than This may well just be a failure of my imagination, however – more crucially, hypothesizing that there are lots of universes with different laws of physics doesn’t actually explain why we observe our universe. This kind of multiverse idea is a strictly more complicated hypothesis than just accepting that our universe exists and being agnostic about others, right? The only remotely reasonable argument I’ve heard in favor of some kind of multiverse is that many-worlds is a simpler interpretation of quantum mechanics than wavefunction collapse. This is a distinct idea from the proposal that our universe was born as a random sample among countless others with different physical laws, which is not a simpler explanation of anything at all as far as I can tell.
If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized these arguments, please let me know.
Planes would not be required for stratospheric injection of SO2. It could in theory be done much more cheaply with balloons: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/06/06/we-should-not-let-the-earth-overheat/
I’m enjoying this series, and look forward to the next installment.
Can someone with more knowledge give me a sense of how new this idea is, and guess at the probability that it is onto something?
Yeah, in general, we are pretty compute limited and should stick to good heuristics for most kinds of problems. I do think that most people rely too much on heuristics, so for the average person the useful lesson is “actually stop and think about things once in a while”, but I can see how the opposite problem may sometimes arise in this community.
- 6 Oct 2023 10:35 UTC; 5 points) 's comment on Commonsense Good, Creative Good by (
- 6 Oct 2023 10:30 UTC; 3 points) 's comment on Commonsense Good, Creative Good by (EA Forum;
I find it useful to distinguish between epistemic and instrumental rationality. You’re talking about instrumental rationality – and it could be instrumentally useful to convince someone of your beliefs, to teach them to think clearly, or to actively mislead them.
Epistemic rationality, on the other hand, means trying to have true beliefs, and in this case it’s better to teach someone to fish than to force them to accept your fish.
Why are we so sure chatbots (and parrots for that matter) are not conscious? Well, maybe the word is just too slippery to define, but I would bet that parrots have some degree of subjective experience, and I am sufficiently uncertain regarding chatbots that I do worry about it slightly.
I’m confused. I know that it is like something to be me (this is in some sense the only thing I know for sure). It seems like there rules which shape the things I experience, and some of those rules can be studied (like the laws of physics). We are good enough at understanding some of these rules to predict certain systems with a high degree of accuracy, like how an asteroid will orbit a star or how electrons will be pushed through a wire by a particular voltage in a circuit. But I have no way to know or predict if it is like something to be a fish or GPT-4. I know that physical alterations to my brain seem to affect my experience, so it seems like there is a mapping from physical matter to experiences. I do not know precisely what this mapping is, and this indeed seems like a hard problem. In what sense do you disagree with my framing here?
A better way to do the memory overwrite experiment is to prepare a list of what’s in the box to match each of ten possible numbers, then have someone provide a random number while your short term memory doesn’t work and see if you can successfully overwrite the memory that corresponds to that number (as measured by correctly guessing the number much later).
How does Harry know the name “Lucius Malfoy”?
We aren’t surprised by HHTHHTTTHT or whatever because we perceive it as the event “a sequence containing a similar number of heads and tails in any order, ideally without a long subsequence of H or T”, which occurs frequently.
I suppose what I’m trying to point to is some form of the outer alignment problem. I think we may end up with AIs that are aligned with human organizations like corporations more than individual humans. The reason for this is that corporations or militaries which employ more ruthless AIs will, over time, accrue more power and resources. It’s not so much explicit (i.e. violent) competition, but rather the gradual tendency for systems which are power-seeking and resource-maximizing to end up with more power and resources over time. If we allow for the creation / fine tuning of many AI agents, and allow them to accrue resources and copy themselves, then natural selection will favor the more selfish ones which are least aligned with humanity at large. We already require pretty extensive regulation to make sure that corporations don’t incur significant negative externalities, and these are organizations that are run by and composed of humans. When those entities are no longer humans, I think the vast majority of power and resources will no longer be explicitly controlled by humans, and moreover will be controlled by AI which has values poorly aligned with the majority of humans. The AI’s goals will only be aligned with the short-term interests of the small number of humans that created them in the first place. Once the majority of people realize that this system is not acting in their long-term interests, there will be nothing they can do about it.
Oh good catch, I missed that. Thanks!
Please note that the graph of per capita war deaths is on a log scale. The number moves over several orders of magnitude. One could certainly make the case that local spikes were sometimes caused by significant shifts in the offense-defense balance (like tanks and planes making offense easier for a while at the beginning of WWII). These shifts are pushed back to equilibrium over time, but personally I would be pretty unhappy about, say, deaths from pandemics spiking 4 orders of magnitude before returning to equilibrium.