@magic9mushroom's banner p

magic9mushroom

If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1103

magic9mushroom

If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1103

Verified Email

But in turn, that doesn't make his proposed answers better or useful.

but it does have some genuine benefits... and we have no way to implement them, and no way to validate or even seriously consider whether we're even looking at the most important measures.

Note that these are useful if you share the Yudkowskian view of neural nets. Specifically, the view that it is impossible to align a neural net smarter than you; "a technique, inventable before the Singularity, that will allow us to make neural-net ASI and not die" is a contradiction in terms. There are thus no "useful" answers, if you define "useful" as "works on neural nets".

In this paradigm, 100% of surviving worlds follow this two-point plan:

  1. Neural nets are totally and permanently abandoned until after the Singularity; they are banned in all countries (convincing everyone is hard; easier is convincing enough nuclear powers, hard enough, that the holdout countries are either occupied or obliterated).

  2. Non-doomed versions of AI research (e.g. GOFAI, uploads) continue.

The reason you need #1 is that #2 is going to take at least 50 years to hit the Singularity. The reason you need #2 is that #1 is only metastable, not actually stable; sooner or later, in a hundred years or a million, the Butlerian Jihad will break down, at which point everybody dies unless we've hit the Singularity in the meantime.

And hence, work on how to make non-neural-net AI work is necessary (if less urgent than stopping neural nets, on which point Yudkowsky is indeed currently focusing).

"Dutch"/"Deutsch" are actually the same word whose spelling was standardised a slightly-different way; the Netherlands was part of the Holy Roman Empire and is thus part of Germany in the broad sense. Same reason there are "Pennsylvania Dutch" (who are German).

It's basically the same issue as the ambiguity of "Congolese" or "Korean", just old enough to predate spelling standardisation.