Because modern WEIRD culture is actually an amalgamation of many subcultures, and individuals have leeway to select their subculture, people who are genuinely doing harm with their selfishness are not easy to attack directly.
I think I experience the reverse effect of this. I introspected if what you were saying was true in my own experience, and I found the opposite—I tend to get praised for altruism and derided for egoism (especially if it harms other.)
There’s a type of egoism I do tend to get praised for, which is like “following my dreams”, but again, only if its not at the expense of others.
Anyways, I think this is because I select to be around people who love altruism.
I’d rather not get attacked all the time. I’m sick of the psycho-Kremlinology that we all get subjected to. I’m just not moral enough for that. Sorry.
Have you thought about changing your peer group?
FWIW I think there’s also something to the thing Anna mentions about IDC being biased towards parts that are more verbal. You can get around this with sufficient skill at focusing and introspection, but my sense is that there is indeed some number of people who use it without that sufficient skill, and therefore end up in a state where they’ve integrated all of the concerns of verbal part A, and only 30% of the concerns of less-verbal part B. And because they themselves aren’t in touch with other channels such as kinesthetic, they think they are 100% integrated and often act from that place
To me, this seems highly dependent on the ontology.
But aren’t we explicitly talking about the AI changing it’s architecture to get more reward? So if it wants to optimize that number the most important thing to do would be to get rid of that arbitrary limit.
Whether or not an AI would want to wirehead would depend entirely on it’s ontology. Maximizing paperclips, maximizing the reward from paperclips, and maximizing the integer that tracks paperclips are 3 very different concepts, and depending on how the AI sees itself all 3 are plausible goals the AI could have, depending on it’s ontology. There’s no reason to suspect that one of those ontologies is more likely that I can see.
Even if the idea does have an ontology that maximizes the integer tracking paperclips, one then has to ask how time is factored into the equation. Is it better to be in the state of maximum reward for a longer period of time? Then the AI will want to ensure everything that could prevent it being in that is gone.
Finally, one has to consider how the integer itself works. Is it unbounded? If it is, then to maximize the reward the AI must use all matter and energy possible to store the largest possible version of that integer in memory.
One answer of a thing you’re missing is the fact that twitter is already testing a dislike button (for replies).
It’s weird that it turns Reimman into Reynam, which seems like a mistake someone would make if you told them the prompt in person.
In general a lot of the words kind of seem like it understands phonetics? Like “Synngy” is kinda phonetically close to “singularity”.
It’s kinda like it’s generating its own gibberish language that could fool you into thinking someone was talking about the subject of you weren’t paying attention while they talked… Or something.
Do you have a human story about why sharing stories is self-doxxing? I imagine most stories can be told in a way that doesn’t doxx, especially if you change some details that are irrelevant to the crux.
I think there are other things like the sequences around that are much more embodied.
Find and follow people you actually want to be friends with and interact with them as you would actual friends.
When you post, ask yourself if this is something that your friends would find fun or valuable or useful.
If the sequences relate to emotions from a disembodied frame, they’re disembodied.
I think this is more the case of the pre/trans fallacy. There are “post rationalists” who are drawn to the type of things post-rationalists are doing, but don’t have the same ability to sandbox the frames they’re stepping into from their epistemic sensemaking, because they were never actually rationalists.
Most random utility functions are bad, but there are a few good ones. *
Yeah, I think that a leader who has more power should probably be assigned more blame (as stated above), but not sole blame, unless there’s some sort of bizarre structure where they have absolute power.
Responsibility is about neither it’s about counterfactual causality. Accountability on the other hand is about promises and maybe that’s what we’re talking about here?
It’s the state of being the person who caused something to happen, it’s a causal definition. E.g., Merriam Webster on this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsibility
I clearly stated that I see Soryu as responsible as he could have counterfacrually caused something else to happen. Of course, everyone else in that situation is also responsible.
Accountability and responsibility are two separate things of course, both useful concepts.
At this point though this conversation isn’t feeling truth seeking or mutually respectful/loving to me so I’ll quite likely stop responding in this thread.
I haven’t watched the video, but the way that responsibility works is that if you have the ability to respond to a situation to change the outcome, then you have response-ability. So yes, Soryu does have responsibility for this situation, as does every other person involved in the situation.
If what Soryu is talking about in the video is blame, not responsibility, then sure he could set up an organizational structure where he takes all the blame. In some sense, he has done this (hence him getting blamed here despite never having met), but if so I don’t have to buy into that structure. Blame is a moral and social claim and others don’t get to dictate my morals or social choices.
I think in terms of the actual dynamics of how to ensure that the situation doesn’t happen again and that there is restorative justice, putting the blame all on him isn’t the best way to get changes made. I think he should take a significant proportion of the blame as leader of the CEDAR organization, but that there were many people more directly involved that should also take much of the blame.
Copying a comment from the other deleted post on the topic as I think it helps provide context for what MAPLE is now doing to address some of these issues and how the OP’s experience at our OAK branch applies to MAPLE.Hey HS2021,
(For others reading, the context of this is that Shekinah attended an experimental new location of Monastic Academy called OAK. She was asking questions about how her experience at OAK applied to the main center, MAPLE, and other questions about the organizational response. )
I want to acknowledge that I have multiple competing goals in engaging here. I want to engage with you with compassion and understanding. I also want to do my best to answer honestly and clarify what I see is happening for both you and others, and finally I want to personally understand what did happen and clarify if I’m seeing the organization clearly and if we need to make changes (or in the extreme case do I need to distance myself from the organization).
So I likely won’t make anyone completely happy with this response, including you, myself, or my friends here at MAPLE.
I also want to state that this isn’t an official response from the organization, it’s my own personal sensemaking and understanding having done a lot of work to critically examine the organization and understand how it works.
So all that being said, here’s my best attempt to answer the questions I think I have insight on:
Does the program structure significantly differ from OAK?
Yes. The program here in Vermont is quite different from what you described. For instance, we are discouraged from fasting during retreats, and typically maintain a much tighter container for them (such as reading out the rules before beginning them).
Is there separation between staff and participant roles?
During awakening periods (silent retreats), MAPLE has people running the retreat center, and others doing the meditation, and there is a clear separation (aside from a couple roles—Head Monk, and Care, which do both). During “responsibility” periods (off retreat) of course the residents and apprentices are expected to take on non-profit responsibilities, that’s a key part of the training, and there’s less of a separation.
Is MAPLE practicing informed consent?
As far as I can tell MAPLE does a fairly good job of this. For instance the guest management typically is very clear with people what a retreat entails before they attend, and then a very clear speech is given the day before retreat about what it will be like, and people are once again given the opportunity to leave. Finally, every participant reads out loud a retreat agreement the moment before the retreat starts, so that everyone is crystal clear on the expectations.
I’ve seen MAPLE continue to get better and clearer about this over the time I’ve been here.
What about oversight and accountability?
My understanding is MAPLE has 3 decision making roles at the org—head teacher, executive director, and love role. One of the benefits of this arrangement is that there’s checks and balances to power, and I’ve seen those checks and balances effectively used to make sure no one in the organization has too much power.
In addition, there’s also the board, which provides external oversight. To my understanding one way they could improve is to get a bit more of an active board.
What is the onboarding process?
MAPLE has a number of different ways people can attend the center, and the onboarding process is different for each of them. They have short term guests, long term residential members, service guests, apprentices, residents, and retreat guests. Can give more specifics here based on what you’d like to know.
I would like to know what the organization is doing to “investigate” and improve based on my post and other feedback.
In the year that I’ve been here, I’ve seen clear and consistent efforts to improve along the dimensions that people have mentioned they have issues with. I’ve already mentioned the improvements in informed consent above, and I’ll include several more below. Note of course that all of the initiatives below are new and may change or be ceased as MAPLE learns more.
Removing Leaders that Made Mistakes
On the immediate and obvious level, as far as I can tell, the leaders at OAK that made some admitted mistakes are no longer in leadership roles within the organization. That’s not to say none of them will be in leadership roles in the future, but to my eye at least they weren’t ready and the organization sensibly removed them from those roles.
Changing How They Approach New Centers
The organization as far as I can tell has also drastically changed the way it approaches launching new centers. I had an opportunity to experience the new OAK container for a month when they were experimenting with it, and the leader there is deliberately NOT trying to hold a “teacher” role. Instead, he is simply there to hold the container/rules, and may in time step into the teacher role if he feels ready.
Meanwhile our sister center Willow is ran an even more radical experiment, trying to mostly do away with hierarchical structure all together and run a 3 month experiment with a more collective/holocratic structure.
Implementing a Formal Teacher Training Program
The organization has now created and implemented a formal teacher training program, which replaces the previous less formal method of teacher training. My hope is that this training program will help to standardize the process and quality of teachers at new centers.
Creating a Standard Rubric for the Training
In addition to standardizing the teacher training, the program is also working to standardize how they measure the core things they’re looking to train, and see how effective the teachers and training actually are.
Creating Systems for Better Oversight at New Centers
The organization is developing software for use at all the centers, that can track the aforementioned metrics and provide a standardized system for running centers and allowing anyone at the center to give feedback. This gives better insight into what’s happening at centers for leaders of the organization, and can help prevent issues before they become very large.
Better Communicating What to Expect from the Training
The organization has continually improved how it describes what the organization is and what to expect as an apprentice, including updating the website, updating the resident/apprenticeship agreement, as well as giving very clear talks/conversations early on in apprenticeship about what to expect.
That’s just a sample, and there’s a lot more improvements I haven’t mentioned here.
In terms of investigation, there’s a number of things going on. All of this is of course subject to change as they learn more and adapt:
MAPLE is taking a look at best practices that other similar organizations have and recommend, and seeing how we can model our policies, practices, and process after successful investigations/policies of others.
We’re starting to interview previous residents and apprentices (hopefully quite a few of them), and better understand their experience in and after the training. This will help us to better understand and improve where we can.
Leadership here is having many conversations with others, getting their perspectives and insights and seeing what MAPLE can learn from others.
I think that simple might actually be transitive I’m this case.
It seems like something like “An AI that acts and reasons in a way that most people who are broadly considered moral consider moral” would be a pretty good outcome.