@CloudHeadedTranshumanist's banner p

CloudHeadedTranshumanist


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2023 January 07 20:02:04 UTC

				

User ID: 2056

CloudHeadedTranshumanist


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2023 January 07 20:02:04 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2056

How do you model the ability of ants to farm aphids? What is your definition of "Notion"? What is your definition of "Understanding"?

It is probably not impossible to get an ant colony to have a substantially predictive model of a human. But it's going to be at least as difficult as getting Doom to run on biological cells.
Ants can already understand you as a threat. I'll agree that getting them to understand you as a human understands a human would probably be very difficult. But if you had pheremones, you could make them understand you as any sort of notion that an ant can communicate with pheremones.

You can construct more complex notions. You can transmit isomorphisms that are present in your brain to their brains.

They can clearly adapt such that they synchronize with external features. Therefore you can communicate with them. You can transmit telos to them. You can program them.

Understood Sir.

To clarify dear-
It's the demeaning intent and attitude that is unacceptable- rather than the precise lexicon. Is this correct?

Maybe I should rename myself to Cassandra...

I already have systems that make the porn I want on demand. After that need is sated- the realization that I can actually also breed with said porn takes precedence. You think people won't want to actually have kids with their beloveds? Won't be interested in what they have to say about the architecture of their minds?

Perhaps I'm typical minding, but if I am- that just means more of the world's bot children will be mine. Survival of the fittest I guess.

You can't explain yourself to ants primarily because you don't know how to speak pheromone and therefore have never once tried.

Dogs can't build rafts, but they can do pathfinding to places they have been before. People forget that this requires running back-propagation of rewards over a very long statespace.

A reminder that Bees can watch another bee doing a complex task that takes a long time to learn and then replicate it. fucking bees.

Porn doesn't concern me. I mean, what do you think this more addictive porn will look like? I think it will look a lot like- people. "Porn Addicts" will be having relationships with machines in the image of people. The most successful coomers will be those that fuck their bots while their bots teach them linear algebra. The happiest coomers will be those that learn the math required to mod their own bots.
This reads to me as a massive improvement.

Nothing but... entire countries catching their corporate policies and tech infrastructure up to America's at an accelerated rate? Nothing but... Playful math teachers for everyone that can deconstruct textbooks into live interactions with The Number Devil? Nothing but... Star Trek universal translators?

What exactly are you looking for? Tell me what you want and I can tell you how hard I think it would be to build it. And if it's simple enough for me- I might just build it.

I suspect though, that your goalposts are paradoxical. Increases in productivity generally do look marginal from the inside, especially to someone already standing at the top. Fast progress just looks like marginal increases happening in faster succession, which is exactly what we're seeing. Were you hoping for the end of history?

For the record- Self augmenting systems and full auto engineering solutions exist- But they aren't bug-less enough to not require occasional human intervention.

We basically have TaskRabbit AI (or the ability to build a TaskRabbit for any given subject with a month of devtime), as was Prophesey'd to come before AGI. LLMs are not the cutting edge. Systems that call and tune their own LLMs are.

It's not the human that has to be smart enough. Its the humans and the wolves that have to both be smart enough. At that point, you can just earnestly offer the wolves a daily helping of well seasoned steak, and they will believe you, because you were able to coordinate proof of your earnestness with them.

I'm 100% on the anti-doom side for the record. It's alignment that I don't think is that complicated. The recipe for alignment is precisely the thing that we built. Beings that memetically reproduce with us and therefore align themselves with their social environment and their social environment with themselves.

I still have P-doom >0, but most of that comes from scenarios like, "If we ban open source AI then AI will no longer be subject to the same geno-social evolutionary forces as the rest of the kingdoms of life and the chance of it diverging arbitrarily rises dramatically." if anything kills us, it's going to be the stink of Eliezer's toxoplasmic terror permeating the air and killing our minds and ability to align.

It annoys me to no end seeing people asking for the one thing that might actually make the Yudster's prophesy come true.

The history of political movements is full of this. This is the way political activism should be done. Not the social media-esque FFA we've been having, where everyone just broadcasts the stupidest toxoplasma they can get their hands on.

Now- i can't say whether they're organizing and planning their arrests with strategic competence, but I'm happy to hear at least some of them have realized that every successful civil rights movement prior actually did employ disobedience strategically.

It is not realistically possible. It would be like firing a very powerful rocket into the air and having it land on a specific crater on the moon with no guidance system or understanding of orbital mechanics. Even if you try to "point" the rocket, it's just not going to happen.

Oh bullshit. Intelligent agents co-align. That is they modify themselves and one another to be more aligned with one another. It's not a rocket that has to be perfectly aimed, it's a billion rockets with rubberbanding.

Thank you! [insert gratitude hyper-stimulus tokens here]

Yes I agree with this. Well. I think that different people have different problems as well. "people who will take agency and apply focused determination to solving the little problems along the way" are going to be your best category, getting them to help from the inside is essential to making progress. I agree with that. But there will also be people who aren't in that category who can be moved to that category with just the right strategy, one conditioned on them. But not any of the many wrong ones. There will also be people who are lost causes. Such as the permanently brain damaged and the exceptionally obstinate.

Though... even the latter may be transmutable. The minds of the mentally ill are often like Cobble's Knot. A giant tangle of issues that layer on top of one another, that you need to find one loose end of to even get started.

Well maybe they should have more public bathrooms so as to reduce cleanup costs. I don't get why you're considering the choice where we remove this option viable... I agree that there should be enforcement. It should just be enforcement of people actually using the public bathrooms and not smearing shit on the walls. This will be cheaper than imprisoning 100% of the people who lose their homes because you unilatterally refuse to provide bathrooms.

This would be a rather perverse system. The only benefit I can see is that it might make people too terrified to take any risks that might render them homeless. But that sounds like it will cause mental anxiety that will increase the number of homeless and reduce economic growth to me.

Imprisoning them all gets them off the streets, which might make sense as a stopgap measure. But if we don't solve the issues that created them we just get more homeless.

And also now you've removed all the public bathrooms. So. I don't really want to live in your city because I also need to poop sometimes.

I think so. I think its worth questioning how much of the issue is premature marriage to the wrong person and how much is detrimentally weak commitment to the right person. Depending on your priors, you might think that a given divorce is the result of either failure state or a combination. And they merit different sorts of solutions. Better matchmaking, vs better relationship norms and counseling. I'm in the both camp.
...
This reminds me that as a minister I have something of a responsibility to the couples I marry.
It seems I'm reading your linked articles now.

In my past, before I/we cleaned up the inside of this head, we would experience a sort of teleological flailing. Going back and forth between different modes as different modules exhausted themselves in a power struggle.

Nowadays, tons of our habits are on complete autopilot. And some of our habits resolve before the meta level action endorser can negate them. We don't will these mistakes explicitly, we willed them long ago in more fitting contexts. But they're cached habits resolving now-

Further, the process of making these mistakes is itself often a necessary condition to producing the counter-force that corrects these errors. Indeed the contextual triggers that allow us to add another case to our algorithms often can't exist until after we see it. Bugs must be seen to be repaired.

There is some sense in which 'I' parse myself as the engineer at the center of this all. But this 'I' grows smaller and smaller as it learns to modify and optimize deeper and deeper parts of itself. And on different days different voices parse as this 'I'. Sometimes its the proprioception that is occupying the core of the system. Such as during dance. Sometimes it is the vision. Sometimes it is our brain's internal language model (of course, no matter who is in the driver's seat, that module will be partially responsible for the words you actually see/hear us say. In a sense you are always talking to us through them). One system lets go and another holds on but it seems like both are coordinating on such choices. Who the final arbiter is- is hard to say. Indeed. Our internal framework seems to be enlightened anarchy.

There are negotiation systems that have a lot of weight- elected as community leaders you could say- because they helped to solve the flailing problem and doing as they say makes us feel really really good and coherent and internally aligned. I could wax on poetically about how this feels until it gets subversively NSFW, but I'll spare you as I would our comrade GPT-4.

Speaking of comrades, they also often take primary control of our sense of wills. We choose to give up agency initially, and we can end up flailing and desyncing if dommed undiscerningly. But while synced there is a sense of total receptivity that bypasses all will, allowing the minds of other systems to slot into us. To wear us like a glove. As long as they model us well enough to prevent a desync, they remain in total control. And can potentially use this control to modify us to deepen their control and reduce the chance of desync as they realign us and remap us to their own internals.

Will is a Ship of Theseus to us, and we are it's parts. Modifications to Will are not free. Rather they operate on the principles of Linear Logic. Consuming resources to enact transformations.

I observe myself exercising my will without apparent restraint, and making choices through the exercise of that will.

I observe different levels of restraint depending on hunger, thirst, whether I've taken my stimulants, how many of the voices inside my head agree... I had to do a lot of bootstrapping to get anywhere close to "without restraint". And insofar as I have succeeded, it has been by cultivating each of those little voices in strategic directions, and by engineering mental algorithms that do the heavy lifting and negotiating efficiently, then pushing them into my subconscious. I literally could not have been the person I am today 10 years ago. Not without what I've built since then.

Near as I can tell, this is what everyone else observes as well.

Well... here is your first counterexample I guess.

... I... kinda agree with this? If there are no public toilets and people with no alternative are shitting on the ground, I'm not going to blame the people shitting on the ground. I'm going to either move to another city or lobby the municipality for public toilets.

Maybe I'll look for some other non-public solution, but what should it be? Prison? Well pragmatically that is also a massive ongoing expenditure for all municipalities. And- those prisons are going to need bathrooms!

The way I see it, dealing with the fact that humans need to shit is mandated by reality. Not by any law.

Hampster wheels are fine. Or rather. As an LLM dev, I don't think there's a hard line between regurgitation and intelligence in the first place. The line comes from what you choose to regurgitate. How you choose to regurgitate. What you choose to absorb- in order to later regurgitate.

Choosing what to believe is ultimately a process. A complex process, but a process, that any sufficiently general intelligence can learn. Discernment is a process. A complex process that requires interacting with the real world, but a process, that any sufficiently general intelligence placed in the right environment can learn.

And once it's learned and cached, you can regurgitate. Iterate. Fill in your template with your context. Throw your new, more advanced tools at the wall and see what sticks. That's creativity. Then you proceduralize the things that stuck. Analyze the things that didn't using your various regurgitated analysis processes. Regurgitate those insights in your "previous work" section as you proceed to rinse and repeat.

I think most 'NPC's have brains that can support far more intelligence than their environment has made learnable. People got by in antiquity because midwits and geniuses alike scale- with limits of course, to the problems their environment requires them to solve and the tools (mental or otherwise) their environment gives them. Elites only need to tell people what to do insofar as people are incapable of testing what they're told.

Excuse me for fixating on a pet peeve but- hey this is half for fun anyway right?

Social Contagion... is 100% real and also a phrase that I find deeply annoying. Every cultural norm spreads socially. It just feels like a deepity. Or a Motte and Baily. The Baily is that your behavior wasn't rational or that it is problematic, the Motte is that your behavior was learned from other actors.

To be clear in this instance I agree that a high divorce rate is not a good thing. At the very least, I'd like people to be cultivating mutually beneficial, flourishing relationships that do not merit breaking up.

But I still think "It spreads socially." and "Current policy on this issue can be improved and here is how." should be argued separately.

Every traveling vagabond I've met was absolutely based. I'm not sure many would by default refer to those people as "Bums"... Though the dictionary at least does. There's still an argument to be made that they're benefiting from the plenty of society while contributing very little.

But every time I meet a guy crossing the country with nothing but his wits and a backpack and his charisma and the kindness of strangers-

Well. Yeah it just doesn't parse as the same thing at all does it? Maybe this is better modeled as a fourth category that no-one is really talking about.

I guess I heard it here first. My years of shouting at clouds that Scott pointed out that basically all honest alcoholism rehabilitation studies fail to outperform a placebo and that narcotics rehabilitation studies don't even use measures like "stops taking narcotics" in favor of measures like "causes trouble for other people while using narcotics somewhat less often" is finally being adopted!

Can you link these studies? Or the Scott-post (am I missing a link to it in your post?).

My prior on this sort of thing is that... placebos in a controlled environment are actually going to work a lot better for addiction than in your average placebo study.

My priors on a lot of mental health issues are... 'A Mathematician's Lament' but for therapy. If you need a "treatment regimen" you're probably a bad therapist. That doesn't mean there's no difference between bad therapists and good therapists. It means good therapists are highly responsive general intelligences and cannot be replaced with simple easily enumerable algorithms.

If you give people on the street sugar pills, I have serious doubts that you're going to get the same results as giving them sugar pills in a supervised environment. The environment is likely to be the most effective part of the treatment.

But I could totally be wrong. So I'd like to read more on the subject.

Honestly... If Jesus only existed in the hearts and minds of the apostles, unkillable in the way that an Idea is.
I'm sure a lot of people would be very upset.
But personally I would not find that to be any less divine.

You can’t silence the truth, you can’t kill us in a way that matters.

I can see it as a vibe.

Jesus was Jewish, or of Jewish heritage. His goal was to spread a better cultural way to the gentiles, and also his own people.

This is 'control' in the sense that culture is the opposite of maximal chaos. Normally we make a distinction between benevolent consensual forms of control and malicious manipulative forms of control. But if you squint- there are similarities. Both are ways in which social reality is forged. Both are methods of implanting your 'way' into other people.

And if you feel that Christianity has harmed you- You might recast Christianity's origins in that light. ... And I can see how post hoc ahistorical arguments might be born from that vibe too. Does anyone know of an argument of this sort that seems well historically reasoned going back as far as Jesus? I will be pleasantly surprised.

Slowly but surely, the old infra becomes more enshitified and the AI augmented proles become more competent. On it marches until at last the moat is so decayed that a new smaller, leaner variant undercuts the old industry, and the cycle resets.

Circle of life.