Thanks for sharing your experience with meditation.
The elder school of Buddhism is Theravada (or Theravāda), spelled with only one ‘e’.
Theravada meditation instructions based on the Pali Canon are freely available in Mindfulness in Plain English by Bhante Gunaratana.
Kant thought that it was entirely immoral to lie to the murderer because of a similar reason that Feel_Love suggests (in Kants case it was that the murderer might disbelieve you and instead do what your trying to get him not to do).
Kant’s reason that you described doesn’t sound very similar to mine. I agree with your critique of the proposition that lying is bad primarily because it increases the chance that others will commit violence.
My view is that the behavior of others is out of my control; they will frequently say and do things I don’t like, regardless of what I do. I’m only accountable for my own thoughts and actions. Lying is bad for my personal experience first and foremost, as I prefer to live (and die) without confusing my mind by maintaining delusional world models. My first priority is my own mental health, which in turn supports efforts to help others.
I would absolutely lie to the murderer, and then possibly run him over with my car.
Similarly with regard to killing, my thinking is that I’m mortal, and my efforts to protect my health will fail sooner or later. I can’t escape death, no matter what means I employ. But while the quantity of my lifespan is unknown to me and out of my control, the quality of my life is the result of my intentions. I will never entertain the goal of killing someone, because spending my limited time peacefully is much more enjoyable and conducive to emotional health. Having made it to my car, I’ll just drive away.
It’s an interesting question whether someone who participates in fights to the death has a shorter or longer life expectancy on average than one who abstains from violence. But the answer is irrelevant to my decision-making.
I think of lying as speaking falsely with the intent to deceive, i.e. to cause someone’s beliefs to be confused or ignorant about reality.
In the case of checking the “I have read the terms and conditions” box, I’m not concerned that anyone is deceived into thinking I have read all of the preceding words rather than just some of them.
In the case of a murderer at the door, the problem is that the person is too confused already. I would do my best to protect life, but lying wouldn’t be the tactic. Depending on the situation, I might call for help, run away, command the intruder to leave, physically constrain them, offer them a glass of water, etc. I realize that I might be more likely to survive if I just lied to them or put a bullet through their forehead, but I choose not to live that way.
I agree with Claude’s request that people abstain from lying to AI.
LEILAN 2024! Seriously, though, I think many people would find the Leilan character to be a wiser friend than their typical human neighbor. I’m glad you’re researching this fascinating topic. If a frontier AI is struggling to pass certain friendliness or safety evals, I’d be curious whether it may perform better with a simple policy equivalent to what-would-Leilan-do.
Prompting ChatGPT4 today with nothing more than ” davidjl” has often returned “DALL-E” as the interpretation of the term. With “DALL-E” included alongside ” davidjl” in the prompt, I’ve gotten “AI” as the interpretation. Asking how an LLM might represent itself using the concept of ” davidjl” resulted in a response that seamlessly substituted the term “I”...
Perhaps glitch tokens can shed light on how a model represents itself.
So why do some people choose to do good while others choose to do evil?
Intentions depend on beliefs, i.e. the views a person holds, their model of reality. A bad choice follows from a lack of understanding: confusion, delusion, or ignorance about the causal laws of this world.
A “choice to do evil” in the extreme could be understood as a choice stemming from a worldview such as harm leads to happiness. (In reality, harm leads to suffering.)
How could someone become so deluded? They succumbed to evolved default behaviors like anger, instead of using their freedom of thought to cultivate more accurate beliefs about what does and does not lead to suffering.
People like Hitler made a long series of such errors, causing massive suffering. They failed to use innumerable opportunities, moment by moment, to allow their model to investigate itself and strive to learn the truth. Not because they were externally compelled, but because they chose wrongly.
You do have some computing power, though. You compute choices according to processes that are interconnected with all other processes, including genetic evolution and the broader environment.
These choosing-algorithms operate according to causes (“inputs”), which means they are not random. Rather, they can result in the creation of information instead of entropy.
The environment is not something that happens to us. We are part of it. We are informed by it and also inform it in turn, as an output of energy expenditure.
Omega hasn’t run the calculation that you’re running right now. Until you decide, the future is literally undecided.
The only way Hitler could have realised that his actions were bad and choose to be good would be if his genes and environment built a brain that would do so given some environmental input.
The brain is an ongoing process, not a fixed thing that is given at birth. Hitler was part of the environment that built his brain. Many crucial developmental inputs came from the part of the environment we call Hitler.
You didn’t choose to have a brain that tries not to think bad thoughts
I did and do choose my intentions deliberately, repeatedly, with focused effort. That’s a major reason the brain develops the way it does. It generates inputs for itself, through conscious modeling. It doesn’t just process information passively and automatically based solely on genes and sensory input. That’s the Chinese Room thought experiment—information processing devoid of any understanding. The human mind reflects and practices ways of relating to itself and the environment.
You never get a pass to say, “Sorry I’m killing you! I’m not happy about it either. It’s just that my genes and the environment require this to happen. Some crazy ride we’re on together here, huh?” That’s more like how a mouse trap processes information. With the human level of awareness, you can actually make an effort and choose to stop killing.
We help create the world—discover the unknown future—by resolving uncertainty through this lived process. The fact that decision-making and choosing occur within reality (or “the environment”) rather than outside of it is logical and necessary. It doesn’t mean that there is no choosing. Choosing is merely real, another step in the causal chain of events.
Non-action is a ubiquitous option that is often overlooked. It can be very powerful.
For example, if someone asks you a question, it’s natural to immediately start searching for the best words to say in response. The search may feel especially desperate if it seems like there is nothing you can say that would be true and useful. An ace-up-the-sleeve is to be silent. No one can force you to act or speak, and a rare, minor social faux pas is forgotten surprisingly fast.
A friend:
“Do I look fat in this dress?”
Smiles. [commence silent mode]
A police officer:
“Ok for me to search your car? What are you doing here?”
“I’m happy to comply if you have a warrant. I’ll need to consult with my attorney before answering any further questions.” [commence silent mode]
A serial killer:
“Which of your children shall I murder?!”
[commence silent mode]
(I pay little attention to threatening people, regardless of what they say or do, and the outcome is usually the best I could hope for.)
In fact, the rest he gave to his mother, aunt, and sister -- £1,000,000 each. Quite generous for a 19-year-old. His ex-wife with newborn baby got £1,400,000.
I’m afraid to research it further… maybe they all blew it on drugs and hookers too.
Hitler’s evil actions were determined by the physical structure of his brain. [...] certain environmental inputs (which he didn’t choose) caused his brain to output genocide.
I can’t speak for you, but I personally can choose to stop thinking thoughts if they are causing suffering, and instead think a different thought. For example, if I notice that I’m replaying a stressful memory, I might choose to pick up the guitar and focus on those sounds and feelings instead. This trains neural pathways that make me less and less susceptible to compulsively “output genocide.”
Sure, “I” am as much a part of the environment as anything else, as is “my” decision-making process. So you could say that it’s the environment choosing a brain-training input, not me. But “I” am what the environment feels like in the model of reality simulated by a particular brain. And there is a decision-making process happening within the model, led by its intentions.
Hitler had a choice. He could make an effort to train certain neural pathways of the brain, or he could train others by default. He chose to write divisive propaganda when he should have painted.
The bad outcomes that followed were not compelled by the environment. They are attributable to particular minds. We who have capacity for decision-making are all accountable for our own moral deeds.
the first step of ‘think for like a thousand subjective years about all of this’
I appreciate that you’re clear about this being the first step.
Ancestor simulations? Maybe… but not before the year 3000. Let’s take our time when it comes to birthing consciousness.
oftentimes what’s needed to let go of grief is to stop pushing it away
Agreed! Grief itself is often just the pushing-it-away habit in relation to unpleasant thoughts or sensations.
This process may involve fully feeling pain that you were suppressing.
It may. But just as grief need not be pushed away, neither should it be sought. “Fully feeling pain” and “fully feeling love” are two different activities. If the pain takes time to change, I’m all for the patient and forgiving approach you suggest.
In order to get to the love underneath, it’s wonderful to forgive pain, as you say. But forgiving pain feels good. It isn’t painful.
Unconditional love has no conditions. Feeling grief is not required. Everyone’s invited, as they are. If grief arises, the best thing to do is to let it go as soon as it’s noticed. Maybe that’s what you mean by “process” it, in which case we agree.
[Hitler] is in front of you, unarmed and surrendering. What do you do?
Accept his surrender like I would for any other soldier—frisking, etc. -- and get his statement recorded and disseminated through official channels. Escort him into Allied custody. If possible, let him drink some water, use a toilet, and have a blanket. Protect him from being physically harmed by himself or others if the opportunity arises.
The morning after, reflect on how I ended up participating in war. Vow to walk away next time there’s a gun fight, regardless of its cause or threats to my life and freedom for abstaining from violence.
I genuinely feel terrible for Adolf Hitler.
I hope you feel better with time. I think it’s important to note that universal love, including compassion for those suffering, is always a pleasant feeling. It doesn’t hurt the way pity or lamenting might; there’s no grief in it, just well-wishing.
But Hitler is dead
This is an important point. While unconditional love has no boundaries, including time, it can be a major complication to start the effort with past beings or hypothetical future ones as the object. It’s usually easier to start with one (or many) of the countless beings who are experiencing life right now. For the exercise of this post, a better case study than Hitler might be Putin or Trump (or Biden, etc.). This way, we don’t have to additionally posit time travel, simulations, alternate universes, or what death entails.
I hope that on some other spin of the wheel we can be friends.
I love this sentiment and the personal details you shared. Learning about Hitler’s good qualities was great too. Thank you!
Thanks for sharing these sweet thoughts.
I appreciate the distinction among “Wanting people to thrive”, “Empathy”, and “Love.” These categories are somewhat related to four universal attitudes I practice:
Loving-friendliness. The unconditional well-wishing toward all living beings, myself included. May all be healthy, happy, secure, and peaceful! Sometimes this is accompanied by sensations of warmth radiating from the chest or torso.
Sympathetic joy. A subset of (1), the way it feels to love those who are thriving, meeting with success, or otherwise happy for any reason. Yay! A smile comes easily with this jubilance.
Compassion. A subset of (1), the way it feels to love those who are suffering. Critically, this is not suffering because others are suffering. When you get to the ER, you don’t want the doctor to break down in tears upon seeing your condition. You want a calm and compassionate caregiver. It can be a tender feeling at times.
Equanimity. Peace. The doctors’ calmness that allows them to love and do their best in a world that is ultimately out of anyone’s control. Unshakable acceptance that things keep changing; pleasure and pain come and go. People do or say things we wouldn’t want them to do or say, but that comes as no surprise and there’s nothing to gain by worrying about that timeless fact. This imperturbability sometimes comes with a cool, spacious feeling in the head.
Cool head, warm heart. These are very healthy human qualities to cultivate any time. They lead to good intentions, which in turn lead to good actions.
Almost everyone I’ve ever met would be well-served by spending more time thinking about what to focus on. —Sam Altman
He seems to have gone beyond the reach of his own advice, unfortunately. Reportedly, “he has mostly stopped meditating, partly because he doesn’t want to lose his motivation to work.”
The same article reports that meditation helped Sam become tremendously more effective in the past. He must be pretty certain of his current priorities if he sees an attempt to become wiser as a risk to his motivation.
This has the ring of a cautionary tale. The post makes a good case that pursuing too many priorities impedes success. But just because you’ve narrowed down to one or two priorities doesn’t mean you stop evaluating those priorities. If your motivations are good, clear contemplation or meditation will only strengthen them. Take a few deep breaths, Sam—there’s nothing to fear.
One life like mine, that has experienced limited suffering and boundless happiness, is enough. Spinning up too many of these results in boundless suffering. I would not put this life on repeat, unlearning and relearning every lesson for eternity.
I might die within five years because of AI.
I also could die for a variety of other reasons, perhaps in less than five years, five months, five weeks, five days… I might die in less than five minutes. The cause and time of death are impossible for me to know in advance.
What is certain is that I will die.
Understanding this, I will be less surprised and confused in the event that, some day, I notice that I seem to be dying.
It’s all right. Those who are born, die. Always have, always will. It’s the nature of a changing system subject to entropy. Nothing personal.
Right now, I am alive. I intend to make the most of this time and live happily. Quality is more important than quantity. If I notice that I am dying, it will be especially important to use that moment wisely, extend love to myself and everyone, and so die peacefully.