I am a volunteer organizer with PauseAI and PauseAI US, a top forecaster, and many other things that are currently much less important.
The risk of human extinction from artificial intelligence is a near-term threat. Time is short, p(doom) is high, and anyone can take simple, practical actions right now to help prevent the worst outcomes.
I recently visited a farmers market with my partner. I immediately understood that sentence, and I smiled and found it touching. They weren’t at the farmers market to go grocery shopping. They were there to relax and spend time together, in a way that also supports the local community. (It’s not even about wasteful consumerism—they weren’t at a shopping mall.)
“Buying vegetables they didn’t need” carries the same sentiment as “Sam bought flowers because they were yellow.” That statement doesn’t even tell you whether Sam especially likes yellow, because that isn’t the point. The point is that Sam got out of her burnout rut by going to a relaxing, low-stakes environment with her partner and making somewhat arbitrary decisions, to find peace and freedom in not having to optimize every little thing, and not having to justify every whim.
It clearly didn’t land with every audience, but it hit me exactly where I was.
I’m open to the idea that autopoietic systems invariably butt up against against reality in a way that shapes them over time. But I am missing some connections that would help me evaluate this idea.
I’m completely sold on the notion that a co-evolving swarm of sophisticated intelligences is a very bad thing for the longevity of the human race, but I already thought that beforehand. What I still don’t see is why a single well-aligned superintelligence (if such a thing can be created) would be certain to eventually drift away from an intent to allow or facilitate the flourishing of humanity.
You stated an assumption that there is an “evolutionary feedback loop,” but the existence of a feedback loop does not necessarily imply evolution.
What does it mean for a single entity to evolve? Doesn’t implicit learning (i.e. selection effects) require population-level dynamics, and the death or marginalization of systems that cannot compete?
And why would a superintelligence evolve? I do not expect it to be under threat in any way. Can’t it persist by merely updating its surface-level predictions about the environment, without specific priorities ever being affected? Even if the AI was under threat, I would expect the changes that it would undergo in order to survive to be explicit / intentional, not implicit / environmentally forced.
The problem is: public advocacy is way too centered on LLMs, from my perspective.[9] Thus, those researchers I mentioned, who are messing around with new paradigms on arXiv, are in a great position to twist “Pause AI” type public advocacy into support for what they’re doing!
I am a long-time volunteer with the organization bearing the name PauseAI. Our message is that increasing AI capabilities is the problem—not which paradigm is used to get there. The current paradigm is dangerous in some fairly legible ways, but that doesn’t at all imply that other paradigms are any better. Any effort to create increasingly capable and increasingly general AI systems ought to be very illegal unless paired with a robust safety case, and we mostly don’t tie this to the specifics of LLMs.
Well, the government regulators hardly matter anyway, since regulating the activity of “playing with toy models, and publishing stuff on arXiv and GitHub” is a hell of an ask—I think it’s so unlikely to happen that it’s a waste of time to even talk about it, even if it were a good idea all-things-considered.
Yeah, restricting the creation and dissemination of most AGI-related research is definitely a much harder ask. I can imagine a world that has an appetite for that kind of invasive regulation (if it is necessary), but it would probably require intervening steps to get there, including first regulating only the biggest players in the AGI race (which is a very popular idea across all political spectra in the western world).
1.6.2 I’m broadly pessimistic about existing efforts towards regulating AGI
My overall p(doom from AI by 2040) is about 70%, which shows pessimism on my part as well. But of course, that’s why I’m trying so hard. My ranking of “ways we survive” from most to least likely goes: Robust Governance Solutions > Sheer Dumb Luck > Robust Technical Solutions. So advocacy is where I spend my time.
In any case, a world that is more aware of the problem is one that is more likely to solve it by some means or another. I’m working to buy us some luck, so to speak.
It’s important for everyone to know that there are many things they can personally do to help steer the world onto a safer trajectory. I am a volunteer with PauseAI, and while I am very bad at grassroots organizing and lobbying, I still managed to start a local chapter and have some positive impact on my federal representative’s office.
I suggest checking out PauseAI’s Take Action page. I also strongly endorse ControlAI, who are more centralized and have an excellent newsletter.
I’m sorry for your loss. It is something no one should have to go through.
My father was diagnosed with Parkinson’s last year. I have processed and accepted the fact that he is going to die.
Under the circumstances, he is most likely going to die from artificial intelligence at about the same time that I do.
There is no temptation you could give me that would make me risk the end of all things. Not prevention of my father’s death. Not the prevention of my death. Not the prevention of my partner’s death. I do not need AGI. Humanity as a whole does not need AGI, nor do most people even want it.
Death is horrible, which is why everyone should be strongly advocating for AGI to not be built, until it is safe. By default, it will kill literally everyone.
If you find yourself weighing the lives of everyone on earth and deciding for yourself whether they should be imperiled, then you have learned the wrong lesson from stories of comic book supervillains. It’s not our choice to make, and we are about to murder everyone’s mothers.
I don’t know what it would mean for AI to “be democratic.” People in a democratic system can use tool AI, but if ASI is created, there will be no room for human decision-making on any level of abstraction that the AI cares about. I suppose it’s possible for an ASI to focus its efforts solely on maintaining a democratic system, without making any object-level decisions itself. But I don’t think anyone is even trying to build such a thing.
If intent-aligned ASI is successfully created, the first step is always “take over the world,” which isn’t a very democratic thing to do. That doesn’t necessarily mean there is a better alternative, but I do so wish that AI industry leaders would stop making overtures to democracy out of the other side of their mouth. For most singularitarians, this is and always has been about securing or summoning ultimate power and ushering in a permanent galactic utopia.
This is beautiful, and I have been soothed and uplifted by it. Thank you for sharing the gift of gratitude with me.
There is a lot wrong with this post.
The AI you want to assist you in research is misaligned and not trustworthy.
AI is becoming less corrigible as it becomes more powerful.
AI safety research almost certainly cannot outpace AI capabilities research from an equal start.
AI safety research is way behind capabilities research.
Solving the technical alignment problem on its own does not solve the AI doom crisis.
Short timelines very likely mean we’re just dead, so this is a conversation about what to do with the last years of your life, not what to do that stands a chance at being useful.
Overall, the argument in this post serves primarily to reinforce an existing belief and to make people feel better about what they are already doing. (In other words, it is just cope.)
Bonus:
AI governance is strictly necessary in order to prevent the world from being destroyed.
AI governance on its own is sufficient to prevent the world from being destroyed.
AI governance is evidentially much more tractable than AI technical alignment.
On a first reading of this summary, I take it as a small positive update on the quality of near-term AI Safety thinking at DeepMind. It treads familiar ground and doesn’t raise any major red flags for me.
The two things I would most like to know are:
Will DeepMind commit to halting frontier AGI research if they cannot provide a robust safety case for systems that are estimated to have a non-trivial chance of significantly harming humanity?
Does the safety team have veto power on development or deployment of systems they deem to be unsafe?
A “yes” to both would be a very positive surprise to me, and would lead me to additionally ask DeepMind to publicly support a global treaty that implements these bare-minimum policies in a way that can be verified and enforced.
A “no” to either would mean this work falls under milling behavior, and will not meaningfully contribute toward keeping humanity safe from DeepMind’s own actions.
The answer is to fight as hard as humanly possible right now to get the governments of the world to shut down all frontier AI development immediately. For two years, I have heard no other plan within an order of magnitude of this in terms of viability.
I still expect to die by default, but we won’t get lucky without a lot of work. CPR only works 10% of the time, but it works 0% of the time when you don’t do it.
Only the sane are reaching for water.
I’m glad we now have a study to point to! “Automated Spear Phishing at scale” has been a common talking point regarding current risks from AI, and it always seemed strange to me that I hadn’t heard about this strategy being validated. This paper shows that the commonly-shared intuition about this risk was correct… and I’m still confused about why I haven’t yet heard of this strategy being maximally exploited by scammers.
The reasoning you gave sounds sensible, but it doesn’t comport with observations. Only questions with a small number of predictors (e.g. n<10) appear to have significant problems with misaligned incentives, and even then, those issues come up a small minority of the time.
I believe that is because the culture on Metaculus of predicting one’s true beliefs tends to override any other incentives downstream of being interested enough in the concept to have an opinion.
Time can be a factor, but not as much for long-shot conditionals or long time horizon questions. The time investment to predict on a question you don’t expect to update regularly can be on the order of 1 minute.
Some forecasters aim to maximize baseline score, and some aim to maximize peer score. That influences each forecaster’s decision to predict or not, but it doesn’t seem to have a significant impact on the aggregate. Maximizing peer score incentivizes forecasters to stay away from questions where they are strongly in agreement with the community. (That choice doesn’t affect the community prediction in those cases.) Maximizing baseline score incentives forecasters to stay away from questions on which they would predict with high uncertainty, which slightly selects for people who at least believe they have some insight.
Questions that would resolve in 100 years or only if something crazy happens have essentially no relationship with scoring, so with no external incentives in any direction, people do what they want on those questions, which is almost always to predict their true beliefs.
Metaculus does not have this problem, since it is not a market and there is no cost to make a prediction. I expect long-shot conditionals on Metaculus to be more meaningful, then, since everyone is incentivized to predict their true beliefs.
Not building a superintelligence at all is best. This whole exchange started with Sam Altman apparently failing to notice that governments exist and can break markets (and scientists) out of negative-sum games.
That requires interpretation, which can introduce unintended editorializing. If you spotted the intent, the rest of the audience can as well. (And if the audience is confused about intent, the original recipients may have been as well.)
I personally would include these sorts of notes about typos if I was writing my own thoughts about the original content, or if I was sharing a piece of it for a specific purpose. I take the intent of this post to be more of a form of accessible archiving.
I used to be a creationist, and I have put some thought into this stumbling block. I came to the conclusion that it isn’t worth leaving out analogies to evolution, because the style of argument that would work best for most creationists is completely different to begin with. Creationism is correlated with religious conservatism, and most religious conservatives outright deny that human extinction is a possibility.
The Compendium isn’t meant for that audience, because it explicitly presents a worldview, and religious conservatives tend to strongly resist shifts to their worldviews or the adoption of new worldviews (moreso than others already do). I think it is best left to other orgs to make arguments about AI Risk that are specifically friendly to religious conservatism. (This isn’t entirely hypothetical. PauseAI US has recently begun to make inroads with religious organizations.)
I don’t find any use for the concept of fuzzy truth, primarily because I don’t believe that such a thing meaningfully exists. The fact that I can communicate poorly does not imply that the environment itself is not a very specific way. To better grasp the specific way that things actually are, I should communicate less poorly. Everything is the way that it is, without a moment of regard for what tools (including language) we may use to grasp at it.
(In the case of quantum fluctuations, the very specific way that things are involves precise probabilistic states. The reality of superposition does not negate the above.)
I am not well-read on this topic (or at-all read, really), but it struck me as bizarre that a post about epistemology would begin by discussing natural language. This seems to me like trying to grasp the most fundamental laws of physics by first observing the immune systems of birds and the turbulence around their wings.
The relationship between natural language and epistemology is more anthropological* that it is information-theoretical. It is possible to construct models that accurately represent features of the cosmos without making use of any language at all, and as you encounter in the “fuzzy logic” concept, human dependence on natural language is often an impediment to gaining accurate information.
Of course, natural language grants us many efficiencies that make it extremely useful in ancestral human contexts (as well as most modern ones). And given that we are humans, to perform error correction on our models, we have to model our own minds and the process of examination and modelling itself as part of the overall system we are examining and modelling. But the goal of that recursive modelling is to reduce the noise and error caused by the fuzziness of natural language and other human-specific* limitations, so that we can make accurate and specific predictions about stuff.
*The rise of AI language models means natural language is no longer a purely human phenomenon. It also had the side-effect of solving the symbol grounding problem by constructing accurate representations of natural language using giant vectors that map inputs to abstract concepts, map abstract concepts to each other, and map all of that to testable outputs. This seems to be congruent with what humans do, as well. Here again, formalization and precise measurement in order to discover the actual binary truth values that really do exist in the environment is significantly more useful than accepting the limitations of fuzziness.
One can talk about competitive pressures and the qualitatively new prospect of global takeover, but the most straightforward answer to why humanity is charging full speed ahead is that the leaders of the top AI labs are ideologically committed to building ASI. They are utopists and power-seekers. They don’t want only 80% of a utopia any more than a venture capitalist wants only 80% of a billion dollars.