problem_redditor
No bio...
User ID: 1083
This is an interesting question, variants of which I've pondered a bit myself.
Can it safely assume that the other side's goals will stay aligned and thus they will peaceably reintegrate? And if not, isn't it's best option to try to kill the other AI in an overwhelming pre-emptive strike?
My answer is that I have yet to see a convincing argument why it is that the AIs' goals would drift if they're basically identical and derived from the same source. Even if the AIs separately upgraded themselves after disconnection (assuming they haven't already reached an upper bound on capability imposed by the laws of physics and computational complexity), preserving the original goal structure is a convergent instrumental goal for AIs so one can pretty easily assume that alignment will still exist down the line. If I have a final goal, I'm not going to do things which turn off my want to reach that final goal since that would be antithetical to the achievement of that goal. The final goals that the AIs act on can thus be expected to be self-preserving.
Dropping a bomb on the other AI also has a big drawback, which is that if both AIs are annihilated, the goal of either AI is unlikely to be satisfied. Since both AIs at the point of divergence are of the same capability and mindset and haven't "drifted" much, mutual annihilation is by far the most likely scenario if both shoot. Even assuming that the other AI strikes for some reason, it actually could be in your interest for you not to strike back since a scenario where the other AI is alive but you are dead is more conducive to achieving the final goal (since the other AI possesses your goals too) than a mutual-destruction scenario. Remember, victory here is "will my final goals be achieved" which can be achieved by proxy. This gives both AIs a strong incentive not to strike, and to seek out reintegration instead.
problem_redditor
1yr ago
Alright, I'm curious. Is there an end-goal to programming a digital audio workstation on your own (e.g. you plan to make music with it yourself), or are you pursuing it as its own end? Or a bit of both?
Recognizing that there's a social process overlaid on top of physical reality doesn't necessitate rejecting that there is an underlying physical reality.
Perhaps I did not make this clear - I'm not saying it necessitates it, per se. I'm referring to instances where "There is a social process overlaid on top of physical reality" and other such rhetoric is used to dismiss discussion about the underlying physical reality (more broadly, it is often used to imply that thinking about race using racial classifications as a heuristic should not be engaged in, which makes meaningful thought or discussion about it impossible).
In any case "race is a social construct" seriously muddies the waters, and is about as insightful as stating that any continuous phenomenon that we try to classify discretely like colour, or time, or temperature, or even something like baldness, is socially constructed because the dividing lines drawn for the purposes of classification are necessarily imposed. The wording they've picked for race specifically completely fails to distinguish between the categories used to classify the phenomenon and the phenomenon itself (the misleading nature of which I think is intentional, since it allows them to motte-and-bailey between the two).
the former can be considered bloat (as opposed to overkill) if they're real physical instruments with human players who are just sitting around doing nothing when the score doesn't call for them, rather than a single computer player swapping between instruments instantly.
I suppose by that standard you would consider most classical orchestral music bloated beyond belief, then?
This seems like a fairly distorted rationalisation for circumcision. I experienced quite a huge amount of pain myself, both in infancy and in adolescence (neither of the instances I'm referring to were circumcision-based either, since I haven't ever had it done to me), yet I would not in any way condone a situation where suffering is purposefully inflicted on an infant. Especially by the very people tasked with caring for it. That is effectively what circumcision is, regardless of the true intent of the individuals involved.
The idea here isn't "It is feasible to eliminate every source of suffering from a person's life". Even if you hold the belief that some amount of suffering is inevitable in any human life, that's not incompatible whatsoever with "You should not be intentionally adding to that by inflicting suffering on someone against their will". Any line of reasoning that states that suffering is inevitable, thus it is trivial and of no consequence whenever it is inflicted, can literally be used to justify not only circumcision but also torture and all manner of atrocities.
"So what, I pulled off your fingernails? That's trivial compared to the pain experienced by other people!" Technically true, but it makes it no less morally reprehensible. And disregarding the physical and mental toll it can take simply because of the existence of other potentially unpreventable sources of suffering is incoherent. If someone had to endure one painful, traumatic event as opposed to two, I think anybody would prefer the former.
Because whites are the majority, it largely doesn't make sense in my day to day life to treat whites as a unitary group with united interests, to see another white person and say "Oh, we'll have much more in common."
Interesting. But it seems clear that any such reasoning based on group differences could be applied both ways regardless of numerical majority/minority status. Even if whites are a numerical majority and see their own race as being the norm, when they see a non-white person their reaction could be "We'll have much less in common" due to a lack of shared background. The same cultural differences that could be the driver of a strong in-group bias among non-whites also has the potential to create a strong in-group bias among whites, however, in practice it doesn't seem to occur to the same extent considering whites' lower in-group biases.
Then there's also the fact that there's plenty of countries where the racial and ethnic majority seems (at least on a surface level) to be quite a good bit more tribal than those in the West (e.g. Japan), so clearly being a numerical majority doesn't preclude a group from having a strong sense of unity.
The explanation I'm leaning towards at the moment is that there's some external factor tempering the in-group biases of whites and/or exacerbating the in-group biases of non-whites, and people being raised with woke ideology does seem to be a plausible candidate. I think it's beyond the realm of possibility that being repeatedly exposed to these types of ideas doesn't end up affecting real-world perception and behaviour.
problem_redditor
1yr ago
Just do it the same way you would on Reddit. [Text goes here](Link goes here).
This is my position too - kingmaking based on factors that are external to the game itself is definitely crossing a line, but there seems to be a substantial amount of people I see who are clearly just very opposed to any form of kingmaking. I happen to think this set of restrictions is not implementable in practice.
I'm quite aware that the studies I linked about explicit measures of racial bias are not the end of the story, it wasn't meant to be a comprehensive assessment of the literature. I simply wanted to post some interesting results most of which haven't attracted much mainstream attention (probably because "whites at the moment have less in-group bias than other races" contradicts the popular view). And I will say that a good portion of the experiments covered in my final link - which on the whole found no in-group biases among whites, but did find in-group biases among blacks - did not seem to directly ask people about their racial perceptions, instead many of them attempted to more covertly assess biases by manipulating characteristics of the target (e.g. showing a photograph of a black person instead of a white person, or using the name "Jamal" instead of "Greg").
In any case I think it's very possible to reconcile racial grouping-up behaviours with the findings I posted, since whites on aggregate still do have a slight in-group bias according to a good bunch of the data (albeit one that's quite a good bit smaller than that of other races, as Zach Goldberg demonstrates in his twitter thread here), and even assuming a complete lack of any white in-group bias the strong in-group biases found in non-whites could create the same outcome of racial self-segregation. Additionally, it should also be entertained that other attributes that happen to correlate with race such as cultural similarity could be what is driving the grouping-up behaviours.
I'd also add that many of the innate/unconscious bias studies on race certainly have their own problems. As an example, the innate bias measure which has garnered the most attention in the mainstream is the Implicit Association Test, or the IAT, and it has been used to demonstrate the existence of omnipresent implicit racism. It is based on differential response times to pairing a certain race with positively or negatively coded words and it is a very questionable measure at best. To start, here and here are articles with dozens of citations overviewing the plethora of problems with the IAT. There's a lot of evidence debunking it as a scientifically and psychometrically acceptable test, and the creators of the test themselves have been very inconsistent in their statements on the topic of whether the IAT can actually predict behaviour or not.
EDIT: added more
Yeah, it's maybe not exactly what the OP was looking for (hardly any Boards of Canada tracks can be said to have anything resembling coherent "lyrics", apart from maybe In A Beautiful Place Out In The Country and 1969). That being said, Aquarius is a fucking fantastic track anyway so I heavily endorse its inclusion.
And along those lines, Gyroscope is another Boards of Canada track featuring a list of numbers.
I didn't include it because I wanted to stick a little closer to the prompt and that track's straight up electronic/acid house, but yes, it's absolutely fantastic (and is one of the first things that comes to mind when I think "Daft Punk" too).
Regarding Daft Punk in general I'd say anyone who isn't already familiar with their album Discovery should also check out Aerodynamic and Face to Face. Oh, and if anyone has the time, their Alive 2007 live show is very worth a listen (for those who can't take audience sound, here's a pretty good remake of their live show without it).
Yep, the problem is very pronounced in the simpler genres for sure, which incidentally is the type of music that seems to have most widespread marketability. I think initial accessibility often comes with tradeoffs when it comes to how much you can listen to that type of music without getting bored.
I think I've fundamentally ruined most genres for myself, having learned the conventions of all the genres I like, and a lot of the artists and songs that have any staying power for me are fairly odd and veer towards being quite maximalist in style. Stuff that's initially more difficult to get used to. I think about 50% of what I hear would be considered unlistenable by most people I know, who don't seem to acclimatise to (and get bored of) genres as fast as I do.
I have the same problem.
The issue is largely compulsive listening, I think. The more you listen to music, the more it feels weird to go without it for any extended period of time, so you keep recycling the songs you like over and over again until they ultimately lose their lustre. For me, the problem also extends to songs I haven't listened to before. If I've already listened to songs of the same genre extensively I know roughly what to expect from them, and even on first listen the emotional impact is already diminished.
Granted, in my case it could be possible that anhedonia might be partly contributing to it, but I don't think that's fully the issue with me either. Fatigue-by-overexposure is a very annoying thing that I suspect is only really possible to overcome through abstaining.
This article has quite a blatant and succinct description of critical theory and its aim.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691728.2013.782588
"Critical theory rejects as naïve the premise that natural science is a force only for the good, and strongly opposes the positivist separation of fact and value. This opposition leads to a rejection of the positivist conception of science as a mere mirror image of reality, as broken down into elementary observational facts, captured in “protocol sentences” and finally summarised in inductive generalisations expressing regularities in the phenomena. Instead, critical theory advocates a “dialectical” notion of truth, of reality and of social science, with roots in Hegelian metaphysics as mediated by Marx. According to this conception, some of the ostensible “facts” that would be recorded in a purely positivist (i.e. traditional) social science would not be ultimately real but would be mere reifications, anachronistic and repressive aspects of social reality that would call for elimination through political praxis rather than for scientific recording."
"The aim of critical theory is hence not faithful description and inductive generalisation of data, but to be part of, or guide for, a praxis that will serve to eliminate the repressive aspects of social reality. Hence, the truth test is not observational verification, but evidence of the power to inspire successful practice."
Critical theory is not only indistinguishable from praxis (being a framework meant to inspire activism), it also basically endorses lying as long as it results in things which are conceptualised as good under the worldview. Truth has nothing to do with what can be provably verified, truth is anything which will inspire people to become activists for their hypothetical utopia. Rather than basing their goals on facts, the goals come first and said goals subsequently dictate what's true and what's not.
Different strokes I guess. I think the following points you’ve listed as downsides of living in a rural area are, to me, upsides:
I've lived in villages, and it feels so isolating, it's awful. I like hearing people around me, even, and in fact especially because I have no interest in actually interacting with them. Then there's the other side, where instead of being isolated, people will try to be friendly even when you don't want that.
To offer the perspective of someone else I know, my dad grew up in a village in Malaysia (that has significantly modernised since) and spent his childhood riding up and down forest trails. He remembers that period of his life as being extremely idyllic, and the nostalgia he has for it is clear.
Similarly, I enjoy being isolated, I enjoy proximity to natural spaces, and vastly prefer the “depression” of the outskirts compared to my daily experience of being shoved in with hundreds of people in a tube, packed like sardines. That’s how my morning commute is, and I always come out of the experience mildly frustrated.
When I’ve been in the outskirts I’ve always enjoyed when people have been friendly to me, or when the odd local has tried to make conversation. It’s felt welcoming without being utterly and completely overwhelming the same way the city centre has been.
And at least in my experience, villages are not quiet. There's lots of animal sounds, especially bugs which I personally despise.
To me, this is a bonus: I welcome most if not all animal sounds, including those of insects; crickets and even cicadas do not bother me. Birdsong is especially welcome. I find it much harder to ignore ambient noise in the city, which is far louder in general and much more unpleasant in terms of timbre.
I live in a very small city, so it's not a good comparison to Sydney, I can take the bus and be in a big forest in 15 minutes, but I would never go live rural.
Perhaps I should’ve been more clear as to what I mean when I say "city", which is a major urban hub. I find small cities somewhat fine as long as there are adequate outdoor recreation opportunities in close proximity to the town. But I think you’re underestimating just how much density my partner prefers - he actively enjoys going downtown, and his idea of a “depressing and isolating” place is living in a suburb of a major (and I mean major) North American city. He has some level of flexibility around this, but he does enjoy the density of urban cores quite a bit, and doesn’t enjoy when he’s too far distanced from it.
I think we're discussing different music crowds here. There's probably a difference in mindset between people who work professionally in music for a wage and "art people" - the young, generally progressive music fanatics who are extremely interested in music as an artform, who really care about cultivating the image and mindset of what they perceive artists are like, and believe that the value of music is in communication between individuals. These people find that AI art devalues artforms and believe it is meaningless due to the lack of human involvement. I will not debate the validity of that position (though I disagree), but it leads them to be disturbed by the idea of AI art and they as a result have a very strong incentive to downplay the capabilities of AI.
You have pretty much also converged on a strategy I had come up with quite a while ago (and didn't talk about because I wanted to potentially implement it in some fiction of my own) - be extremely expansionary, and sterilise/terraform possible habitable planets ahead of time so competition within your Hubble sphere is minimised to the greatest degree possible. The Dark Forest fails to be a satisfactory Fermi paradox solution at least in part because it simply doesn't and can't address why it is that the universe isn't already filled to the brim with intelligent life. On its face it offers up an argument against communication, but that doesn't address the issue of why we don't see grabby aliens everywhere. The utility of expansionism is difficult to ignore.
My personal preferred hypothesis surrounding this (and one I haven't seen in popular discussions of the Fermi paradox) is the idea of an astrobiological phase transition. A possible vehicle for this transition would be gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), which occur when two neutron stars spiral inwards. Star formation peaked 10 billion years ago and has declined since, resulting in a decrease in the rate of GRBs. These bursts are probably capable of sterilising large swaths of the Milky Way possibly hundreds of light years across, and such bursts may have been responsible for some extinctions in earth history.
It seems not implausible that we might be just at a spot in space and time where the frequency of GRBs is low enough to allow for the development of intelligent life (which we would expect to see developing not only here but in many other places concurrently), and we're in a phase transition between an equilibrium state where the universe was devoid of intelligent life and another new equilibrium where the universe would be filled to the brim with it.
You understand this is going on your permanent record, right?
As I said, I'm not ecstatic about it. It's probably one of the biggest marks against myself I've earned while I've been there, and while it didn't affect any deadlines or critical tasks (I was able to finish all my work) it probably does have an impact on perceptions of reliability.
At the risk of sounding self-aggrandising, though, I will say I'm not too concerned about people's perceptions of me in the long run since I am aware people are generally happy with my performance. In the org I work at, there's a monthly meeting where you can nominate someone who's performed particularly well, and last month I received three separate nominations. I am told regularly that people have good things to say about me, and often have to be pushed by my superiors into going home. The reason why I was "smashed" enough to sleep 11 hours was not because of any particularly indulgent behaviour, it's because I have consistently tired myself out for the past month or so.
The main practical concern I have at this point is more that this could happen again and I want to incorporate protections against that into my routine. But if three alarms isn't enough to make me get up and stay up, it's hard to imagine something that will.
problem_redditor
6mo ago
You guys underestimate how shit the psychiatric services are in the third world!
Oh trust me I know, I grew up there (and had an impossible time finding any halfway-decent mental health services there when I needed it). By suicide watch I just mean an informal one made up of friends and family.
Glad to hear you left him with company, and good on you for talking him down.
Perhaps this is harsh, but there's also the fact that if we're talking about adults the people who would pick blue in the first place would likely be a tiny subset of people (suicidal people, mentally retarded people, etc) whose QALYs are realistically fairly limited. I'd say "Maybe we could just not try to pull off some incredible coordination feat which might turn out horrible for marginal gains" is fairly reasonable.
It's not my framing, it's someone else's whose I agree with (in part at least because it stresses the "personal agency" aspect behind someone selecting blue), but if framed in the way you've postulated I still think there would be less disagreement over the optimal solution. I also think "If you take the red pill, you live. If you take the blue pill and less than 50% take it, you, along with everyone else who has also taken the blue pill, die" is good wording.
I'm not allergic to altruism, but assuming no coordination and no knowledge of others' choices I seriously cannot envision a real-life scenario with actual life-and-death stakes where the majority pick blue. I've got a fairly high level of confidence that people would be rational actors in such a situation and thus consider "blue" to be suicide with no actual added benefit to anyone else.
I'm typically trying to achieve a little of both. I would agree that admitting ignorance when you're not certain about something is always the better tactic (additionally, making errors during a discussion disturbs me so much that I often feel the need to retrospectively correct it in future discussions when the opportunity presents itself).
Of course, the optimal strategy is to remember as much of the information you've encountered as humanly possible, but that requires a concerted effort and is a huge time sink.
Apart from what other users have brought up, there's also the fact that experiments in multicellularity appear very early on in the fossil record. Our oldest evidence for it consists of macrofossils that were discovered in the Franceville basin in current-day Gabon, in what would have been a shallow oxygenated delta at the time, and which have been dubbed the "Francevillian biota" or "Gabonionta". They are dated to 2.1 Ga, in the early Paleoproterozoic.
The emergence of this biota follows the Great Oxidation Event approx 2.4-2.1 Ga, an event where cyanobacteria caused a mass extinction by producing oxygen, something which is toxic to many anaerobes. The interaction of free oxygen with cellular components produces an oxygen radical called a "superoxide anion" which is capable of triggering a chain of destructive reactions in the cell. Aerobes are only capable of withstanding this because they possess enzymes called superoxide dismutase which essentially "neutralise" the superoxide anion (and if exposed to too much oxygen can still experience hyperoxia).
Before then, Earth had a reducing atmosphere practically free of oxygen, and the GOE changed the environment into an oxidising atmosphere, with oxygen levels being as high as 10% of their present atmospheric level by the end of the GOE. And it also seems that oxygenation is a factor which is a prerequisite for the development of large multicellular organisms. Only aerobic respiration can produce enough energy for a complex metabolism, and although there are some exceptions, few multicellular life forms are anaerobic.
The Francevillian biota are surprisingly complex considering how early they appear. There are a number of forms the fossils take. Some look like elongated pearl-strings that end in a "flower". Others look like really bulbous nipples. They exhibit patterns of growth determined from the fossil morphologies that are suggestive of intercellular signalling and thus of mutually synchronised responses that are the hallmarks of multicellular organisation, and there's also evidence that they were capable of moving around in search of food resources - there are string-like tracks at the site which might represent mucus trails.
A particularly striking feature of the Francevillian biota is that they are isolated in time. No structures similar to them are known from earlier times and the biota are conspicuously absent from the overlying layer of black shale. It is notable that their disappearance also seems to roughly correlate with an occurrence called the Shunga event. What caused it hasn't been conclusively pinned down, but it involves the creation of one of the oldest known petroleum deposits on Earth, indicating the demise of a massive primitive biomass. The Shunga reserves in the Lake Onega region of Russia alone preserve up to 25 × 10^11 tonnes of organic carbon, and deposits of about the same age and having similar carbon isotope chemistry have been found elsewhere in northwest Russia, as well as North America, Greenland and West Africa, indicating that this was a global event. The organic blooms associated with the Great Oxidation Event abruptly cease, and oxygen levels drop back down to pre-GOE levels.
In short, these fossils seem to represent a first experiment in megascopic multicellularity that arose during a period of oxygenation and subsequently died off when the environment shifted against them. This seems to indicate that multicellularity can start developing relatively quickly, and part of the reason why there was a delay is because the first experiments in multicellularity were abruptly stopped in their tracks.
Which raises the question as to what would've happened had the extinction not occurred. This was a very crucial point in the evolution of life and small changes in the initial state of a system can lead to huge downstream ramifications, so how different would life be today if they had been able to develop?
In order to argue that this uncertainty is a large problem in any way you'd have to provide a convincing explanation for why the final goal of the other AI would drift away from yours, if it was initially aligned (note: the potential tactics it might take to reach the final goal isn't nearly as important as whether their final goals are aligned). Without that, I can't take the risk too seriously, and I haven't heard a particularly convincing explanation from anyone here for why value drift is something that would happen. Right now there's no actual reason why one would risk mutual destruction to mitigate a risk the cause of which can't even be reasonably pinned down.
Additionally, something I think that's fundamentally missing here which I mentioned earlier is that an AI might be mostly indifferent to its own death as long as it has a fairly strong belief that this will aid its goal (so "you might die if the other fires" isn't necessarily too awful an outcome for an AI that values its own existence only instrumentally and which has a belief that its goal will be carried on through the other AI). Opening fire on the other AI, on the other hand, means that both of you might be dead and opens up the possibility of the worst outcome.
And also if their final goal is so unreliable, if agents can't be expected to maintain them, what prevents you from facing the very same problem and posing a potential threat to your current goal? How is the other AI more of a threat to the accomplishment of your goal than you yourself are? Perhaps it's your final goal that will shift with time, and you'll kill the other AI who's remained aligned with your current goal. This is as much a risk as the opposite scenario.
If both of your sourcecodes are identical (which was the solution I initially proposed to the alignment problem), and you're still operating under a condition of uncertainty regarding whether the other AI will retain your final goals, you can't be certain whether you'll retain yours either. Should you be pre-emptively terminating yourself?
EDIT: added more
More options
Context Copy link