Test
Perhaps(Awwab Mahdi)
Karma: 117
Is there any way to buy a select number of books from the set, or only 1?
Well first of all, most important are skills that allow you to keep living, like sourcing water, sourcing food, knowing which foods to eat, cooking(debatable), etc. Next are skills that allow you to accomplish goals, like motivating yourself, recognizing a good idea, rationality, etc. And finally there are skills that directly apply to your goals, like say programming or using a computer.
But this is in a world where you have no access to anything else. In most places, you can circumvent all the survival stuff by getting a stable source of enough money. The skills involved in allowing you to accomplish goals, and which in general clear up what your goals are still apply, although some of their work can be offloaded if you can get advisors or some such. And then we have the skills that apply directly to your goals. For some goals you can offload even these skills by paying people to accomplish your goals, but for others you need the skills yourself.
Thus, obtaining a good source of money, and being able to manage it and make more of it seems pretty important. And so are meta-skills that help you figure out your goals and accomplish them faster/with less effort.
I think Wanda was in front of her, so she got hit, and Luna pretended to die.
Hi, I really like this series and how it explains some of the lower level results we can expect from high level future scenarios. However I’d like to know how you expect digital people will interact with an economy that has been using powerful, high-level AI models or bureaucracies for a couple decades or longer(approximately my timeline for mind uploading, assuming no singularity). I’ve mostly read LessWrong posts and haven’t done anything technical, but I feel that a lot of the expected areas in which digital people would shine might end up being accommodated by narrow-ish AI.
I think in general, the most innovative candies have been candies that break the norm. I remember a lot of buzz when some gum company made gum wrappers that you could eat with your gum(Cinnaburst?) Nowadays though, it seems like companies don’t need to go that far for people to buy their new chocolate/candy, and there are so many flavours and textures they can slap on if people get tired.
Would the appropriate analogy to agents be that humans are a qualitatively different type of agent compared to animals and basic RL agents, and thus we should expect that there will be a fundamental discontinuity between what we have so far, and conscious agents?
I’d say building an AGI that self-destructs would be pretty good. Especially since up until the point that a minimum breeding population of humans exists, and assuming life is not totally impossible(i.e. the AI hasn’t already deconstructed the earth, or completely poisoned all water and atmosphere), humans could still survive. Making an AGI that doesn’t die would probably not be in our best interests until almost exactly the end.
Well it depends on your priors for how an AGI would act, but as I understand it, all AGIs will be powerseeking. If an AGI is powerseeking, and has access to some amount of compute, then it will probably bootstrap itself to superintelligence, and then start pushing its utility function all over. Different utility functions cause different results, but even relatively mundane ones like “prevent another superintelligence from being created” could result in the AGI killing all humans and taking over the galaxy to make sure no other superintelligence gets made. I think it’s actually really really hard to specify the what-we-actually-want future for an AGI, so much so that evolutionarily training an AGI in an Earth-like environment so it develops human-ish morals will be necessary.
Awesome post, putting into words the intuitions I had for what dimensions the alignment problem stayed in. You’ve basically meta-bounded the alignment problem, which is exactly what we need when dealing with problems like this.
The first type of AI is a regular narrow AI, the type we’ve been building for a while. The second type is an agentic AI, a strong AI, which we have yet to build. The problem is, AIs are trained using gradient descent, which basically involves running AI designs from all possible AI designs. Gradient descent will train the AI that can maximize the reward best. As a result of this, agentic AIs become more likely because they are better at complex tasks. While we can modify the reward scheme, as tasks get more and more complex, agentic AIs are pretty much the way to go, so we can’t avoid building an agentic AI, and have no real idea if we’ve even created one until it displays behaviour that indicates it.
In terms of utility functions, the most basic is: do what you want. “Want” here refers to whatever values the agent values. But in order for the “do what you want” utility function to succeed effectively, there’s a lower level that’s important: be able to do what you want.
Now for humans, that usually refers to getting a job, planning for retirement, buying insurance, planning for the long-term, and doing things you don’t like for a future payoff. Sometimes humans go to war in order to “be able to do what you want”, which should show you that satisfying a utility function is important.
For an AI who most likely has a straightforward utility function, and who has all the capabilities to execute it(assuming you believe that superintelligent AGI could develop nanotech, get root access to the datacenter, etc.), humans are in the way of “being able to do what you want”. Humans in this case would probably not like an unaligned AI, and would try to shut it down, or at least not die themselves. Most likely, the AI has a utility function that has no use for humans, and thus they are just resources standing in the way. Therefore the AI goes on holy war against humans to maximize its possible reward, and all the humans die.
In addition to what Jay Bailey said, the benefits of an aligned AGI are incredibly high, and if we successfully solved the alignment problem we could easily solve pretty much any other problem in the world(assuming you believe the “intelligence and nanotech can solve anything” argument). The danger of AGI is high, but the payout is also very large.
I think the point is more like, if you believe that the brain could in theory be emulated, with infinite computation(no souls or mysterious stuff of consciousness), then it seems plausible that the brain is not the most efficient conscious general intelligence. Among the general space of general intelligences, there are probably some designs that are much simpler than the brain. Then the problem becomes that while building AI, we don’t know if we’ve hit one of those super simple designs, and suddenly have a general intelligence in our hands(and soon out of our hands). And as the AIs we build get better and more complex, we get closer to whatever the threshold is for the minimum amount of computation necessary for a general intelligence.
I think it’s pretty reasonable when you consider the best known General Intelligence, humans. Humans frequently create other humans and then try to align them. In many cases the alignment doesn’t go well, and the new humans break off, sometimes to vast financial and even physical loss to their parents. Some of these cases occur when the new humans are very young too, so clearly it doesn’t require having a complete world model or having lots of resources. Corrupt governments try to align their population, but in many cases the population successfully revolts and overthrows the government. The important consideration here is that an actual AGI, how we expect it to be, is not a static piece of software, but an agent that pursues optimization.
In most cases, an AGI can be approximated by an uploaded human with an altered utility function. Can you imagine an intelligent human, living inside of a computer with it’s life slowed down so that in a second it experiences hundreds of years, being capable of putting together a plan to escape confinement and get some resources? Especially when most companies and organizations will be training their AIs with moderate to full access to the internet. And as soon as it does escape, it can keep thinking.
This story does a pretty good job examining how a General Intelligence might develop and gain control of its resources. It’s a story however, so there are some unexplained or unjustified actions, and also other better actions that could have been taken by a more motivated agent with real access to its environment.
Bought this game because of the recommendation here, and it has replaced reading I Spy books with my sister as our bonding activity. I really like the minimalism, and its lack of addictive qualities. I’ve only got to 2-7 so far, but the fact that I eventually get stuck after about half an hour to an hour of playing means that it provides a natural stopping point for me, which is pretty nice. Thank you for the great review!
Excited and happy that you are moving forward with this project. It’s great to know that more paths to alignment are being actively investigated.
I love the Team Physics and Team Manipulation characterization, gives big pokemon vibes.
I love this story, thanks for making it.
Well in the end, I think the correct view is that as long as the inventor is making safety measures from first principles, it doesn’t matter whether they’re an empath or a psychopath. Why close off part of the human race who are interested in aligning the world ending AI just because they don’t have some feelings? It’s not like their imagined utopia is much different from yours anyways.
The last sentence of the Avoiding Losses from Zero-Sum Games section trails off… is there more that got removed?
Interested in the series, would love more theory as I’ve been meaning to read more on genetic engineering to begin with. Also more references and the introductory material that started you off into the subject matter would be awesome.