M. Y. Zuo(Michael Y. Zuo)
This definition seems so vague and broad as to be unusuable.
Both are bad, but only one of them necessarily destroys everything I value.
You don’t value the Sun, or the other stars in the sky?
Even in the most absurdly catastrophic scenarios it doesn’t seem plausible that they could be ‘necessarily destroyed’.
The shorter the better. Or as Lao Tzu said, Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know…
The disclaimer doesn’t need to enumerate a full list, as long as it points out that a nebulous cloud of potential and actual caveats exists and may apply is sufficient.
The threshold still has to be greater than zero power for its ‘care’ to matter one way or the other. And the risk that you mention needs to be accepted as part of the package, so to speak.
So who gets to decide where to place it above zero?
Why not add a disclaimer spelling out that what’s written could be false or misleading depending on the caveats?
“AI Safety”, especially enforcing anything, does pretty much boil down to human alignment, i.e. politics, but there are practically zero political geniuses among its proponent, so it needs to be dressed up a bit to sound even vaguely plausible.
It’s a bit of a cottage industry nowadays.
Wouldn’t that imply the existence of this essay, available for anyone passing by to read, is a net negative?
Like the parent said “Deport all Rationalists” or even “Deport everyone named Arturo Macias” are entirely feasible to accomplish with available resources…
It seems like the more important issue is who gets to decide what to vote on and what is presented for voting?
e.g. if the limit is say 1 vote per day, allowing for sufficient time for reflection and study of the issue at hand assuming perfect allocation of time, there’s still way more then 365 possible things a year to vote on.
If the agent had no power whatsoever to effect the world then it wouldn’t matter if it cared or not.
So the real desire is that it must have a sufficient amount, but not over some threshold that will prove to be too frightening.
Who gets to decide this threhsold?
But an even larger flaw is that they have very small filter areas for no apparent reason.
Is reducing cost of manufacturing filters ‘no apparent reason’?
It seems like literally the most important reason… the profit margin of selling replacement filters would be heavily reduced, assuming pricing remains the same.
That’s a really neat point, has it ever been addressed in prior literature, that you’ve gone over?
Thanks, you’ve listed some plausible downsides, but the upsides also need to be enumerated too, and then likely several stages of synthesis to arrive at a final, persuasive, argument, one way or the other. I’m not saying you have to do all this work, just that someone does in order to advance the argument.
So far I’ve never seen such, anywhere online.
Just because the US government contains agents that care about market failures, does not mean that it can be accurately modeled as itself being agentic and caring about market failures.
I agree, just the fact that it contains such does not necessarily imply anything for or against. e.g. It’s entirely possible for two or more far flung branches of the USG to work towards opposite ends and end up entirely negating each another.
The more detailed argument would be public choice theory 101, about how the incentives that people in various parts of the government are faced with may or may not encourage market-failure-correcting behavior.
Can you lay out this argument with more detail?
Governments don’t automatically care about market failures
Governments don’t care about anything, the people in governments do.
And the USG is large enough that quite literally every second of the day there’s likely at least 1 person who cares intensely about ‘market failures’, likely even far more than you do in writing this. (And conversely at least 1 person that couldn’t care less.)
But this group is not static, it’s constantly fluctuating depending on the actual people in the USG, their positions, expectations, experiences, resources, opportunities, etc...
So the thrust of your post doesn’t quite make sense, since your opinion will literally always be outweighed, at least on a yearly basis, by virtue of the fact that this constantly fluctuating group will inevitably include people with real authority over time.
Can you write down an actual argument, step by step, that can persuade someone with real authority that it’s a net positive/net negative?
So are you planning to convince anyone?
Because so far this jumble of thoughts seems unlikely to be genuinely convincing, let alone to move folks in Washington to do something.
Can you reformulate your thoughts to be more readable? It’s quite hard to make heads or tails out of the points listed.
What’s a realistic reform plan that will get through both Congress, and the White House, and not get struck down by the Supreme court on the first few dozen challenges?
Obamacare had to be watered down many times from its original vision, and encumbered with millions of words of legalese, so much so that it might even have resulted in a net negative to society depending on perspective, and even then it squeaked through by a very slim margin.
I just don’t see much of a chance for anything more ambitious.
I was responding to the requirement to be literally ‘the best’. Ranked number 1 out of 8 billion plus human beings.
‘Expertise’ is a similar concept, the point is that they are clearly capable of reliably doing whatever the title implies, and are recognized as such by their peers in that field.
At a lower standard I think it’s quite reasonable to assume there are many mathematicians cum guitarists cum computer programmers cum biologists. Of course the vast majority of these only dabble in one area or another, like you said with a small time investment.
However to be literally better than every single one of them would require a lot more time, so I picked 10000 as a nice round number.
That seems to be an argument for something more than random noise going on, but not an argument for ‘LLMs are shuggoths’?