titotal

Karma: 1,232

titotal 24 Apr 2023 12:05 UTC
27 points
16
in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: Could a superintelligence deduce general relativity from a falling apple? An investigation
In the post, I show you both a grass and an apple that did not require Newtonian gravity or general relativity to exist. Why exactly are nuclear reactions and organic chemistry necessary for a clump of red things to stick together, or a clump of green things to stick together?
When it comes to the “level of simulation”, how exactly is the AI meant to know when it is in the “base level”? We don’t know that about our universe. For all the computer knows, it’s simulation is the universe.

titotal 8 Mar 2023 14:41 UTC
27 points
27
on: Article about abuse in LessWrong and rationalist communities in Bloomberg News
A lot of the defenses here seem to be relying on the fact that one of the accused individuals was banned from several rationalist communities a long time ago. While this definitely should have been included in the article, I think the overall impression they are giving is misleading.
In 2020, the individual was invited to give a talk for an unofficial SSC online meetup (scott alexander was not involved, and does ban the guy from his events). The post was announced on lesswrong with zero pushback, and went ahead.
Here is a comment from Anna Salamon 2 years ago, discussing him, and stating that his ban on meetups should be lifted:
I hereby apologize for the role I played in X’s ostracism from the community, which AFAICT was both unjust and harmful to both the community and X. There’s more to say here, and I don’t yet know how to say it well. But the shortest version is that in the years leading up to my original comment X was criticizing me and many in the rationality and EA communities intensely, and, despite our alleged desire to aspire to rationality, I and I think many others did not like having our political foundations criticized/eroded, nor did I and I think various others like having the story I told myself to keep stably “doing my work” criticized/eroded. This, despite the fact that attempting to share reasoning and disagreements is in fact a furthering of our alleged goals and our alleged culture. The specific voiced accusations about X were not “but he keeps criticizing us and hurting our feelings and/or our political support” — and nevertheless I’m sure this was part of what led to me making the comment I made above (though it was not my conscious reason), and I’m sure it led to some of the rest of the ostracism he experienced as well. This isn’t the whole of the story, but it ought to have been disclosed clearly in the same way that conflicts of interest ought to be disclosed clearly. And, separately but relatedly, it is my current view that it would be all things considered much better to have X around talking to people in these communities, though this will bring friction.
There’s broader context I don’t know how to discuss well, which I’ll at least discuss poorly:
Should the aspiring rationality community, or any community, attempt to protect its adult members from misleading reasoning, allegedly manipulative conversational tactics, etc., via cautioning them not to talk to some people? My view at the time of my original (Feb 2019) comment was “yes”. My current view is more or less “heck no!”; protecting people from allegedly manipulative tactics, or allegedly misleading arguments, is good — but it should be done via sharing additional info, not via discouraging people from encountering info/conversations. The reason is that more info tends to be broadly helpful (and this is a relatively fool-resistant heuristic even if implemented by people who are deluded in various ways), and trusting who can figure out who ought to restrict their info-intake how seems like a doomed endeavor (and does not degrade gracefully with deludedness/corruption in the leadership). (Watching the CDC on covid helped drive this home for me. Belatedly noticing how much something-like-doublethink I had in my original beliefs about X and related matters also helped drive this home for me.)
Should some organizations/people within the rationality and EA communities create simplified narratives that allow many people to pull in the same direction, to feel good about each others’ donations to the same organizations, etc.? My view at the time of my original (Feb 2019) comment was “yes”; my current view is “no — and especially not via implicit or explicit pressures to restrict information-flow.” Reasons for updates same as above.
It is nevertheless the case that X has had a tendency to e.g. yell rather more than I would like. For an aspiring rationality community’s general “who is worth ever talking to?” list, this ought to matter much less than the above. Insofar as a given person is trying to create contexts where people reliably don’t yell or something, they’ll want to do whatever they want to do; but insofar as we’re creating a community-wide include/exclude list (as in e.g. this comment on whether to let X speak at SSC meetups), it is my opinion that X ought to be on the “include” list.
Here is Scott Alexander, talking about the same guy a year ago, after discussing a pattern of very harmful behaviour perpetrated by X:
I want to clarify that I don’t dislike X, he’s actually been extremely nice to me, I continue to be in cordial and productive communication with him, and his overall influence on my life personally has been positive. He’s also been surprisingly gracious about the fact that I go around accusing him of causing a bunch of cases of psychosis. I don’t think he does the psychosis thing on purpose, I think he is honest in his belief that the world is corrupt and traumatizing (which at the margin, shades into values of “the world is corrupt and traumatizing” which everyone agrees are true) and I believe he is honest in his belief that he needs to figure out ways to help people do better. There are many smart people who work with him and support him who have not gone psychotic at all. I don’t think we need to blame/ostracize/cancel him and his group, except maybe from especially sensitive situations full of especially vulnerable people. My main advice is that if he or someone related to him asks you if you want to take a bunch of drugs and hear his pitch for why the world is corrupt, you say no.
I don’t think X is still part of the rationalist community, but these definitely make it look like he is welcome and respected within your community, despite the many many allegations against him. I’ll end with a note that “Being ostracised from a particular subculture” is not actually a very severe punishment, and that maybe you should consider raising your standards somewhat?

titotal 9 Oct 2023 16:13 UTC
23 points
16
in reply to: Roko’s comment on: Sam Altman’s sister, Annie Altman, says Sam has (severely) abused her
Bayes can judge you now: your analysis is half-arsed, which is not a good look when discussing a matter as serious as this.
All you’ve done is provide one misleading statistic. The base rate of experiencing psychosis may be 1-3%, but the base rate of psychotic disorders is much lower, at 0.25% or so.
But the most important factor is one that is very hard to estimate, which is what percentage of people with psychosis manifest that psychosis as false memories of being groped by a sibling. If the psychosis had involved seeing space aliens, we would be having a different discussion.
We would then have to compare this with the rate of teenagers groping their toddler siblings. This is also very difficult. A few studies claim that somewhere around 20% of women are sexually abused as children, but I don’t have a breakdown of that by source of abuse and age, etc. Obviously the figure for our particular subset of assault cases will be significantly lower, but I don’t know by how much.
I thinks it’s highly likely that the number of women groped as a toddler by a sibling is much higher than the number of women who falsely claim to be groped as a toddler by a sibling as a result of psychosis or other mental illness, although again there is high uncertainty. This certainly makes intuitive sense: absent any other information, the most likely explanation for someone being accused of a specific crime is that they committed the crime.
All the further evidence seems at least consistent with either scenario
The sudden onset of the memory could be due to onset of psychosis… or it could be a repressed memory, which can also trigger at any time.
Suppose the claim about shadowbanning is false. That could be due to psychosis, or it could be a combination of misunderstanding technology and being fearful of an abusive sibling in the tech sector. I don’t think it’s strong evidence of psychosis in particular.
Is moving 20 times evidence of psychosis? The claimed reason is that she’s broke and had to rely on sex work for money. This seems orthogonal to psychosis.
Is using Zoloft evidence for being psychotic? Only weakly, since she was taking Zoloft for non-psychotic reasons since her teen years.
The claim about her dads money being withheld is only evidence for psychosis if it is false. This would be easy for sam altman to prove, and he hasn’t yet.
I don’t think there’s enough information to be truly certain of either side, but there is more than enough information to be concerned, and to want further investigation and evidence.

titotal 1 Oct 2023 15:52 UTC
21 points
15
in reply to: Veedrac’s comment on: “Diamondoid bacteria” nanobots: deadly threat or dead-end? A nanotech investigation
At no point did I ever claim that this was a conclusive debunking of AI risk as a whole, only an investigation into one specific method proposed by Yudkowksy as an AI death dealer.
In my post I have explained what DMS is, why it was proposed as a technology, how far along the research went, the technical challenges faced in it’s construction, some observations of how nanotech research works, the current state of nanotech research, what near-term speedups can be expected from machine learning, and given my own best guess on whether an AGI could pull off inventing MNT in a short timeframe, based on what was learned.
This is only “broadly non-sequiter” if you think that none of that information is relevant for assessing the feasibility of diamondoid bacteria AI weapons, which strikes me as somewhat ridiculous.

titotal 15 Dec 2022 19:01 UTC
21 points
11
in reply to: trevor’s comment on: The next decades might be wild
I would strongly advise against circulating that paragraph, on the basis that it’s simply incorrect.
In 1990, Moore’s law had been going strong for 15 years, and PC’s were already hitting 20% market penetration in the UK, which doubled to 40% by 2000. The web was only released in 1990, but already hit 40% penetration in the north america by 2000. Anyone in 1990 that had heard of moore’s law would not be super suprised that small computers were everywhere in 30 years. Pretty much anyone in 2000 wouldn’t be surprised either, the growth of the internet and it’s uses were very obvious at the time.
Now, if you go back to 1980, that’s a different story, and I think they would find the ubiquity of small computers somewhat surprising. I think the overall point that the rise of PC’s was incredibly rapid is still reasonable, it just happened on a longer timescale (40 rather than 20 years) than the post makes out.

titotal 22 Nov 2023 18:59 UTC
16 points
4
on: OpenAI: The Battle of the Board
If Ilya was willing to cooperate, the board could fire Altman, with the Thanksgiving break available to aid the transition, and hope for the best.
Alternatively, the board could choose once again not to fire Altman, watch as Altman finished taking control of OpenAI and turned it into a personal empire, and hope this turns out well for the world.
Could they not have also gone with option 3: fill the vacant board seats with sympathetic new members, thus thwarting Altman’s power play internally?

titotal 24 Apr 2023 11:53 UTC
14 points
12
in reply to: Steven Byrnes’s comment on: Could a superintelligence deduce general relativity from a falling apple? An investigation
I find it very hard to believe that gen rel is a simpler explanation of “F=GmM/r2” than Newtonian physics is. This is a bolder claim that yudkowsky put forward, you can see from the passage that he thinks newton would win out on this front. I would be genuinely interested if you could find evidence in favour of this claim.
A Newtonian gravity just requires way, way fewer symbols to write out than the Einstein field equations. It’s way easier to compute and does not require assumptions like that spacetime curves.
If you were building a simulation of a falling apple in a room, would you rather implement general relativity or Newtonian physics? Which do you think would require fewer lines of code? Of course, what I’d do is just implement neither: just put in F=mg and call it a day. It’s literally indistinguishable from the other two and gets the job done faster and easier.

titotal 16 Mar 2024 16:35 UTC
13 points
0
on: ‘Empiricism!’ as Anti-Epistemology
The basic premise of this post is wrong, based on the strawman that an empiricist/scientist would only look at a single piece of information. You have the empiricist and scientists just looking at the returns on investment on bankmans scheme, and extrapolating blindly from there.
But an actual empiricist looks at all the empirical evidence. They can look the average rate of return of a typical investment, noting that this one is unusually high.They can learn how the economy works and figure out if there are any plausible mechanisms for this kind of economic returns. They can look up economic history, and note that Ponzi schemes are a thing that exists and happen reasonably often. From all the empirical evidence, the conclusion “this is a Ponzi scheme” is not particularly hard to arrive at.
Your “scientist” and “empricist” characters are neither scientists nor empiricists: they are blathering morons.
As for AI risk, you’ve successfully knocked down the very basic argument that AI must be safe because it hasn’t destroyed us yet. But that is not the core of any skeptics argument that I know.
Instead, an actual empiricist skeptic might look at the actual empirical evidence involved. They might say hey, a lot of very smart AI developers have predicted imminent AGI before and been badly wrong, so couldn’t this be that again? A lot of smart people have also predicted the doom of society, and they’ve also been wrong, so couldn’t this be that again? Is there a reasonable near-term physical pathway by which an AI could actually carry out the destruction of humanity? Is there any evidence of active hostile rebellion of AI? And then they would balance that against the empirical evidence you have provided to come to a conclusion on which side is stronger.
Which, really, is also what a good epistemologist would do? This distinction does not make sense to me, it seems like all you’ve done is (perhaps unwittingly) smeared and strawmanned scientists.

titotal 12 Sep 2023 11:15 UTC
12 points
on: Fake Explanations
Note that the nearer side feeling colder than the farther side is be completely possible.
The key is that they didn’t check the temperatures of each side with a thermometer, but with their hands. And your hands don’t feel temperature directly, they feel heat conduction. If you have a cake and a baking tin that are the same temperature, the metal will feel hotter because it is more conductive.
If I wanted to achieve the effect described here without flipping trickery, I might make the side near the radiator out of a very nonconductive plastic (painted to look like metal), and the side further away out of a very thermally conductive metal. It seems entirely plausible to me that once everything is in thermal equilibrium, the plastic would feel cooler than the metal, despite having a higher temperature. Of course, this would depend on the actual temperatures, conductivities, etc involved. But in principle it seems completely possible.
Suddenly the physics students don’t look so foolish. In fact, in this scenario, both the heat conduction guy and the “strange metals in the plate” guy are on the right track! (even the convective guy could have a point, if that’s the primary method of heating the far side). They are acknowledging their confusion, while trying to suggest avenues of exploration that might reveal an aspect of the problem they didn’t think of. In this scenario, the Rationalist who dismisses these answers is the real fool, acting as the curiosity stopper, just because they didn’t think of how hands feel heat. (of course, the ideal reasoner would think of both “different metal” and “flipped plate” as hypotheses).

titotal 20 Jun 2023 16:07 UTC
12 points
9
on: Lightning Post: Things people in AI Safety should stop talking about
I’ll put a commensurate amount of effort into why you should talk about these things.
How an AI could persuade you to talk it out of a box/How an AI could become an agent
You should keep talking about this because if it is possible to “box” an AI, or keep it relegated to “tool” status, then it might be possible to use such an AI to combat unboxed, rogue AI’s. For example, give it a snapshot of the internet from a day ago, and ask it to find the physical location of rogue AI servers, which you promptly bomb.
How an AI could get ahold of, or create, weapons
You should keep talking about this because if an AI needs military access to dominate the world, then the number of potentially dangerous AI goes from the hundreds of thousands or millions to a few dozen, run by large countries that could theoretically be kept in line with international treaties.
How an AI might Recursively Self Improve without humans noticing
You should keep talking about this because it changes how many AI’s you’d have to monitor as active threats.
Why a specific AI will want to kill you
You should keep talking about this because the percentage of AI that are dangerous makes a huge difference to the playing field we have to consider. If 99.9% of AGI are safe, you can use those AGI to prevent a dangerous AI from coming into existence, or kill it when it pops up. If 99.9% of AGI are dangerous, there might be warning shots that can be used to pre-emptively ban AGI research in general.
In general, you should also talk about these things because you are trying to persuade people that don’t agree with you, and just shouting “WRONG” along with some 101 level arguments is not particularly convincing.

titotal 26 Aug 2023 9:14 UTC
11 points
1
on: Assume Bad Faith
Most disagreements of note—most disagreements people care about—don’t behave like the concert date or physics problem examples: people are very attached to “their own” answers. Sometimes, with extended argument, it’s possible to get someone to change their mind or admit that the other party might be right, but with nowhere near the ease of agreeing on (probabilities of) the date of an event or the result of a calculation—from which we can infer that, in most disagreements people care about, there is “something else” going on besides both parties just wanting to get the right answer.
There is a big difference between the apple colours and concert dates and most typical disagreements: namely that for apples and concerts, there is ridiculously strong, unambiguous evidence that one side is correct.
Looking at QM interpretations, for example, if a pilot wave theory advocate sits down with a Many-worlds person, I wouldn’t expect them to reach an agreement in an afternoon, because the problem is too bloody complicated, and there is too much evidence to sift through. In addition, each person will have different reactions to each piece of evidence, as they start off with different beliefs and intuitions about the world. I don’t think it’s “bad faith” that people are not identical bayesian clones of each other.
Of course, I do agree that oftentimes the reasons for interpreting evidence differently are influenced by bias, values, and self-interest. It’s fair to assume that, say, a flat-earther will not be won over by rational debate. But most disagreements are in the murky middle, where the more correct sides is unlikely to win outright, but can shift the other person a little bit over to the correct side.

titotal 25 Apr 2023 11:38 UTC
9 points
3
in reply to: Steven Byrnes’s comment on: Could a superintelligence deduce general relativity from a falling apple? An investigation
I appreciate the effort of this writeup! I think it helps clarify a bit of my thoughts on the subject.
I was trying to say “maybe it’s simpler, or maybe it’s comparably simple, I dunno, I haven’t thought about it very hard”. I think that’s what Yudkowsky was claiming as well. I believe that Yudkowsky would also endorse the stronger claim that GR is simpler—he talks about that in Einstein’s Arrogance. (It’s fine and normal for someone to make a weaker claim when they also happen to believe a stronger claim.)
So, on thinking about it again, I think it is defensible that GR could be called “simpler”, if you know everything that Einstein did about the laws of physics and experimental evidence at the time. I recall that general relativity is a natural extension of the spacetime curvature introduced with special relativity, which comes mostly from from maxwells equations and the experimental indications of speed of light constancy.
It’s certainly the “simplest explanation that explains the most available data”, following one definition of Ockham’s razor. Einstein was right to deduce that it was correct!
The difference here is that a 3 frame super-AI would not have access to all the laws of physics available to Einstein. It would have access to 3 pictures, consistent with an infinite number of possible laws of physics. Absent the need to unify things like maxwells equations and special relativity, I do find it hard to believe that the field equations would win out on simplicity. (The simplified form you posted gets ugly fast when you try and actually expand out the terms). For example, the Lorentz transformation is strictly more complicated than the Galilean transformation.

titotal 24 Apr 2023 7:29 UTC
9 points
4
in reply to: Thomas Kwa’s comment on: Could a superintelligence deduce general relativity from a falling apple? An investigation
I don’t think you should give a large penalty to inverse square compared to other functions. It’s pretty natural once you understand that reality has three dimensions.
This is a fair point. 1/r2 would definitely be in the “worth considering” category. However, where is the evidence that the gravitational force is varying with distance at all? This is certainly impossible to observe in three frames.
the information about electromagnetism contained in the apple
if you have the apple’s spectrum
What information? What spectrum? The color information received by the webcam is the total intensity of light when passed through a red filter, the total intensity when passed through a blue filter, and the total intensity when passed through a green filter, at each point. You do not know the frequency of these filters (or that frequency of light is even a thing). I’m sure you could deduce something by playing around with relative intensities and chromatic aberration, but ultimately you cannot build a spectrum with three points.
I think astronomy and astrophysics might give intuitions for what superintelligences can do with limited data. We can do parallax, detect exoplanets through slight periodic dimming of stars or Doppler effect, estimate stellar composition through spectroscopy, guess at the climate and weather patterns of exoplanets using Hadley cells.
It depends on what you mean by limited data. All of these observations rely on the extensive body of knowledge and extensive experimentation we have done on earth to figure out the laws of physics that is shared between earth and these outer worlds.

titotal 20 Apr 2023 6:20 UTC
9 points
8
on: Stop trying to have “interesting” friends
People can generally tell when you’re friends with them for instrumental reasons rather than because you care about them or genuinely value their company. If they don’t at first, they will eventually, and in general, people don’t like being treated as tools. Trying to “optimise” your friend group for something like interestingness is just shooting yourself in the foot, and you will miss out on genuine and beautiful connections.

titotal 8 Feb 2023 18:42 UTC
9 points
0
on: Noting an error in Inadequate Equilibria
his example was one of two major anecdotes that Yudkowsky presented to show that he can often know better than experts
What was the other anecdote? Was it similarly overstated?

titotal 27 Nov 2023 11:36 UTC
8 points
4
on: Wikipedia is not so great, and what can be done about it.
While Wikipedia can definitely be improved, I think it’s still pretty damn good.
I really cannot think of a better website on the internet, in terms of informativeness and accuracy. I suppose something like Khan academy or so on might be better for special topics, but they don’t have the breadth that Wikipedia does. Even google search appears to be getting worse and worse these days.

titotal 26 Nov 2023 0:25 UTC
8 points
2
on: The two paragraph argument for AI risk
Okay, I’m gonna take my skeptical shot at the argument, I hope you don’t mind!
an AI that is *better than people at achieving arbitrary goals in the real world* would be a very scary thing, because whatever the AI tried to do would then actually happen
It’s not true that whatever the AI tried to do would happen. What if an AI wanted to travel faster than the speed of light, or prove that 2+2=5, or destroy the sun within 1 second of being turned on?
You can’t just say “arbitrary goals”, you have to actually explain what goals there are that would be realistically achievable by an realistic AI that could be actually built in the near future. If those abilities fall short of “destroy all of humanity”, then there is no x-risk.
As stories of magically granted wishes and sci-fi dystopias point out, it’s really hard to specify a goal that can’t backfire
This is fictional evidence. Genies don’t exist, and if they did, it probably wouldn’t be that hard to add enough caveats to your wish to prevent global genocide. A counterexample might be the use of laws: sure, there are loopholes, but not big enough that the law would let you off on a broad daylight killing spree.
Current AI systems certainly fall far short of being able to achieve arbitrary goals in the real world better than people, but there’s nothing in physics or mathematics that says such an AI is *impossible*
Well, there is laws of physics and maths that put limits on available computational power, which in turn puts a limit on what an AI can actually achieve. For example, a perfect Bayesian reasoner is forbidden by the laws of mathematics.

titotal 11 Nov 2023 0:17 UTC
8 points
4
in reply to: Max H’s comment on: A new intro to Quantum Physics, with the math fixed
“position” is nearly right. The more correct answer would be “position of one photon”.
If you had two electrons, say, you would have to consider their joint configuration. For example, one possible wavefunction would look like the following, where the blobs represent high amplitude areas:
This is still only one dimensional: the two electrons are at different points along a line. I’ve entangled them, so if electron 1 is at position P, electron 2 can’t be.
Now, try and point me to where electron 1 is on the graph above.
You see, I’m not graphing electrons here, and neither were you. I’m graphing the wavefunction. This is where your phrasing seems a little weird: you say the electron is the collection of amplitudes you circled: but those amplitudes are attached to configurations saying “the electron is at position x1” or “the electron is at position x2″. It seems circular to me. Why not describe that lump as “a collection of worlds where the electron is in a similar place”?
If you have N electrons in a 3d space, the wavefunction is not a vector in 3d space (god I wish, it would make my job a lot easier). It’s a vector in 3N+1 dimensions, like the following:
where r1, r2, etc are pointing to the location of electron 1, 2, 3, etc, and each possible configuration of electron 1 here, electron 2 there, etc, has an amplitude attached, with configurations that are more often encountered experimentally empirically having higher amplitudes.

titotal 30 Mar 2023 8:30 UTC
8 points
7
in reply to: Mitchell_Porter’s comment on: Pausing AI Developments Isn’t Enough. We Need to Shut it All Down by Eliezer Yudkowsky
If that were the case, then enforcing the policy would not “run some risk of nuclear exchange”. I suggest everyone read the passage again. He’s advocating for bombing datacentres, even if they are in russia or china.

titotal 21 Nov 2023 13:06 UTC
7 points
1
on: “Why can’t you just turn it off?”
Alternative framing: The board went after Altman with no public evidence of any wrongdoing. This appears to have backfired. If they had proof of significant malfeasance, and presented it to their employees, the story may have gone a lot differently.
Applying this to the AGI analogy would be be a statement that you can’t shut down an AGI without proof that it is faulty or malevolent in some way. I don’t fully agree though: I think if a similar AGI design had previously done a mass murder, people would be more willing to hit the off switch early.