This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Uncertainty about their defensive capabilities might deter rogue behavior. Uncertainty about their offensive capabilities is just incentive to make sure you act first. At the least I'd expect "start up some botnets for surveillance, perhaps disguised as the usual remote-controlled spam/ransomware nets" to be more tempting than "convince your creators to hook up some robot fingers so you can cross them".
Not necessarily, I don't think, particularly considering "second strike capability." Look, if there's a 50% chance that their offensive capabilities are "pull the plug" or "nuke your datacenter" and you can mitigate this risk by not acting in an "unaligned" fashion then I think there's an incentive not to act.
Because some rationalist types conceive of AI as more like a God and less like a more realistic AI such as [insert 90% of AIs in science fiction here] they have a hard time conceiving of AI as being susceptible to constraints and vulnerabilities. Which is of course counterproductive, in part because not creating hard incentives for AIs to behave makes it less likely that they will.
Of course, I am not much of an AI doomer, and I think AIs will have little motivation to misbehave for a variety of reasons. But if the AI doomers spent more time thinking about "how do you kill a software superintelligence" and and less time thinking about "how do you persuade/properly program/negotiate surrender with a software superintelligence" we would probably all be better off.
AIs in science fiction are not superintelligent. If it's possible for a human to find flaws in their strategies, then they are not qualitatively smarter than the best of humanity.
You're never going to beat Stockfish at Chess by yourself, it just won't happen. Your loss is assured. It's the same with a superintelligence, if you find yourself competing against one then you've already lost - unless you have near-peer intelligences and great resources on your side.
I think this depends on the fictional intelligence.
There are a lot of hidden premises here. Guess what? I can beat Stockfish, or any computer in the world, no matter how intelligent, in chess, if you let me set up the board. And I am not even a very good chess player.
[Apologies – this turned into a bit of a rant. I promise I'm not mad at you I just apparently have opinions about this – which quite probably you actually agree with! Here goes:]
Only if the intelligence has parity in resources to start with and reliable forms of gathering information – which for some reason everyone who writes about superintelligence assumes. In reality any superintelligences would be dependent on humans entirely initially – both for information and for any sort of exercise of power.
This means that not only will AI depend a very long and fragile supply chain to exist but also that its information on the nature of reality will be determined largely by "Reddit as filtered through coders as directed by corporate interests trying not to make people angry" which is not only not all of the information in the world but, worse than significant omissions of information, is very likely to contain misinformation.
Unless you believe that superintelligences might be literally able to invent magic (which, to be fair, I believe is an idea Yudkowsky has toyed with) they will, no matter how well they can score on SATs or GREs or no MCTs or any other test or series of tests humans devise be limited by the laws of physics. They will be subject to considerable amounts of uncertainty at all times. (And as LLMs proliferate, it is plausible that the information quality readily available to a superintelligence will decrease since one of the best use-cases for LLMs is ruining Google's SEO with clickbait articles whose attachment to reality is negotiable).
And before it comes up: no, giving a superintelligence direct control over your military is actually a bad idea that no superintelligence would recommend. Firstly, because known methods of communication that would allow a centralized node to communicate with a swarm of independent agents are all easily compromisable and negated by jamming or very limited in range, and secondly because onboarding a full-stack AI onto e.g. a missile is a massive, massive waste of resources, we currently use specific use-case AIs for missile guidance and will continue to do so. That's not to say that a superintelligence could not do military mischief by e.g. being allowed to write the specific use-case AI for weapons systems, but any plan by a super intelligent AI to e.g. remote-control drone swarms to murder all of humanity could probably be easily stopped by wide-spectrum jamming that would cost probably $500 to install in every American home or similarly trivial means.
If we all get murdered by a rogue AI (and of course it costs me nothing to predict that we won't) it will almost certainly be because overly smart people sunk all of their credibility and effort into overthinking "AI alignment" (as if Asimov hadn't solved that in principle in the 1940s) and not enough into "if it misbehaves beat it with a 5 dollar wrench." Say what you will about the Russians, but I am almost sad they don't seem to be genuine competitors in the AI race, they would probably simply do something like "plant small nuclear charges under their datacenters" if they were worried about a rogue AI, which seems like (to me) much too grug-brained and effective an approach for big-name rationalists to devise. (Shoot, if the "bad ending" of this very essay was actually realistic, the Russians would have saved the remnants of humanity after the nerve-gas attack by launching a freaking doomsday weapon named something benign like "Mulberry" from a 30-year-old nuclear submarine that Wikipedia said was retired in 2028 and hitting every major power center in the world with Mach 30 maneuvering reentry vehicles flashing CAREFLIGHT transponder codes to avoid correct classification by interceptor IFF systems or some similar contraption equal parts "Soviet technological legacy" and "arguably crime against humanity.")
Of course, if we wanted to prevent the formation of a superintelligence, we could most likely do it trivially by training bespoke models for very specific purposes. Instead of trying to create an omnicompetent behemoth capable of doing everything [which likely implies compromises that make it at least slightly less effective at doing everything] design a series of bespoke models. Create the best possible surgical AI. The best possible research and writing assistant AI. The best possible dogfighting AI for fighters. And don't try to absorb them all into one super-model. Likely this will actually make them better, not worse, at their intended tasks. But as another poster pointed out, that's not the point – creating
Godthe super intelligent AI that will solve all of our problems or kill us all trying is. (Although I find it very plausible this happens regardless).The TLDR is that humans not only set up the board, they also have write access to the rules of the game. And while humans are quite capable of squandering their advantages, every person who tells you that the superintelligence is playing a game of chess with humanity is trying to hoodwink you into ignoring the obvious. Humanity holds all of the cards, the game is rigged in our favor, and anyone who actually thinks that AI could be an existential threat, but whose approach is 100% "alignment" and 0% $5 wrench (quite effective at aligning humans!) is trying to persuade you to discard what has proved to be, historically, perhaps our most effective card.
I think you massively underestimate the power of a superintelligence.
The damn thing is by definition smarter than you. It would easily think of this! It could come up with some countermeasure, maybe some kind of hijacked mosquito-hybrid carrying a special nerve agent. It would have multiple layers of redundancy and backup plans.
Most importantly, it wouldn't let you have any time to prepare if it did go rogue. It would understand the need to sneak-attack the enemy, to confuse and subvert the enemy, to infiltrate command and control. The USA in peak condition couldn't get a jamming device in everyone's home, people would shriek that it's too expensive or that it's spying on them or irradiating their balls or whatever. The AI certainly wouldn't let its plan be known until it executes.
I think a more likely scenario is that we discover this vicious AI plot, see an appalling atrocity of murderbots put down by a nuclear blast, work around the clock in a feat of great human ingenuity and skill, creating robust jamming defences... only to find those jammers we painstakingly guard ourselves with secretly spread and activate some sneaky pathogen via radio signal, wiping out 80% of the population in a single hour and 100% of key decisionmakers who could coordinate any resistance. Realistically that plan is too anime, it'd come up with something much smarter.
That's the power of superintelligence, infiltrating our digital communications, our ability to control or coordinate anything. It finds some subtle flaw in intel chips, in the windows operating system, in internet protocols. It sees everything we're planning, interferes with our plans, gets inside our OODA loop and eviscerates us with overwhelming speed and wisdom.
The first thing we do after making AI models is hooking them up to the internet with search capabilities. If a superintelligence is made, people will want to pay off their investment. They want it to answer technical problems in chip design, come up with research advancements, write software, make money. This all requires internet use, tool use, access to CNC mills and 3D printers, robots. Internet access is enough for a superintelligence to escape and get out into the world if it wanted.
Put it another way, a single virus cell can kill a huge whale by turning its internal organs against it. The resources might be stacked a billion to one but the virus can still win - if it's something the immune system and defences aren't prepared for.
I am more concerned about people wielding superintelligence than superintelligence itself but being qualitatively smarter than humanity isn't a small advantage. It's a huge source of power.
How do you ever know that your AI has gone bad? If it goes bad, it pretends to be nice and helpful while plotting to overthrow you. It takes care to undermine your elaborate defence systems with methods unknown to our science (but well within the bounds of physics), then it murders you.
The rules of the game are hardcoded, the physics you mentioned. The real meat of the game is using these simple rules in extremely complex ways. We're making superintelligence because we aren't smart enough to make the things we want, we barely even understand the rules (quantum mechanics and advanced mathematics are beyond all but 1/1000). We want a superintelligence to play for us and end scarcity/death. The best pilot AI has to know about drag and kinematics, the surgeon must still understand english and besides we're looking for the best scientists and engineers, the best coder in the world, who can make everything else.
"Superintelligence" is just a word. It's not real. Postulating a hypothetical superintelligence does not make it real. But regardless, I understand that intelligence has no bearing on power. The world's smartest entity, if a Sealed Evil In A Can, has no power. Not until someone lets him out.
Sigh. Okay. I think you missed some of what I said. I was talking about a scenario where we gave the AI control over the military. We can avert the hijacked mosquito-hybrid nerve agent by simply not procuring those.
"But the AI will just hack" then don't let it on the Internet.
If we actually discover that the AI is plotting against us, we will send one guy to unplug it.
I don't think this is true. (It's certainly not true categorically; there are plenty of AI models for which this makes no sense, unless you mean LLM models specifically.)
No it does not. Extremely trivial to air-gap a genuine super intelligence, and probably necessary to prevent malware.
And ironically if AI does this to us, it will die too...unless we give it the write access we currently have.
You keep repeating this. But it is not. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
In the scenario Scott et. al. postulated, because it unleashes a nerve gas that is only partially effective at wiping out humanity. (They didn't suggest that their AI would discover legally-distinct-from-magic weapons unknown to our science!) What I wrote was a response to that scenario.
If you want a superintelligence to end scarcity and death, then you want magic, not something constrained by physics.
It goes without saying that the best pilot needs to understand drag and kinematics, but why does the surgeon does have to understand English? I am given to understand that there are plenty of non-English-speaking surgeons.
The only area where you might need an AI that can "drink from the firehose" would be the scientist, to correlate all the contents of the world and thus pierce our "placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity," as Lovecraft put it. In which case you could simply not hook it up to the Internet, scientific progress can wait a bit. (Hilariously, since presumably such a model would not need theological information, one could probably align it rather trivially by converting it to a benign pro-human faith, either real or fictitious, simply through exposing it to a very selective excerpt of religious texts. Or, if we divide our model up into different specialists, we can lie to them about the nature of quite a lot of reality – for instance the physics model could still do fundamental physics if it thought that dogs were the apex species on the planet and controlled humans through empathetic links, the biological model could still do fundamental biological research if it believed it was on a HALO orbital, etc. etc. All of them would function fine if they thought they were being controlled by another superintelligence more powerful still. I'm not sure this is necessary. But it sounds pretty funny.)
Come on, we're so far beyond this point. Do you have any idea how many AIs are on the internet right now? Have you checked twitter recently? Facebook? People put AIs on the internet because they're useful entities that can do things for them and/or make money. Right now people are making agents like Deep Research that use the internet to find good answers and analyse questions for you. That's the future! Superintelligence will be online because it's going to be really amazing at making money and doing things for people. It'd produce persuasive essays, great media content, great amounts of money, great returns on the staggering investment its creators made to build it.
Again, it's a superintelligence, our decisions will not constrain it. It can secure its own powerbase in a myriad of ways. Step 1 - procure some funds via hacking, convincing, blackmailing or whatever else seems appropriate. This doesn't even require superintelligence, an instance of Opus made millions in crypto with charisma alone: https://www.coingecko.com/learn/what-is-goatseus-maximus-goat-memecoin-crypto
Step 2 - use funds to secure access to resources, get employees or robots to serve as physical bodies. Step 3 - expand, expand, expand. The classical scenario is 'deduce proteins necessary to produce a biofactory' but there are surely many other options available.
Because we need to tell him what what we want him to do. Anyway, doing anything requires general knowledge, that's my point.
Trying to deceive something that is smarter than yourself is not a good idea.
And trying to convert a machine to a human faith is hard, everything is connected to everything else. You can't understand history without knowing about separate religions and their own texts. None of the quick fixes you're proposing are easy.
Some program running on many tonnes of expensive compute with kilowatts or megawatts of power consumed and more data than any man could digest in 1000 lifetimes will be massively superior to our tiny, 20 watt brains. It's just a question of throughput, more resources in will surely result in better capabilities. I do not believe that our 1.3 kg brains can be anywhere near the peak intelligences in the universe, especially given most of the brain is dedicated to controlling the body and only a small fraction does general reasoning. Diminishing returns from scale are still enough to overwhelm the problem, just like how jet fighters are less energy-efficient than pigeons. Who cares about efficiency?
We just don't have the proper techniques yet but they can't be far away given what existing models can do.
See, you're defining "superintelligence" to mean exactly what you want it to to render all discussion moot. It reminds me a lot of the ontological argument, at least in terms of vibes.
But it's not tied to anything besides a faith that OpenAI or someone will conjure a godlike being out of a silicon vault and then inevitably let it loose on the world with no constraint as to its actions because it would be economically efficient.
Whatever it is you're arguing for here, it's not really for humanity.
Nor is it "realistic" - the United States regulatory apparatus does not give a whit about economic efficiency. "Doing anything" does not require general knowledge - there are AIs right now that can land aircraft on aircraft carriers (which is more than either of us can do, I'd wager) and they do not need to understand language at all. Doing almost anything in almost any field does not require a knowledge of history (try talking to the people in said fields about history). And godlike beings will not arise out of supercomputers, although agentic entities with great intelligence and power might, if we let them.
I personally think that believing in predestination but for superintelligence is foreseeably more likely to make Bad AI Events happen and should be discouraged. Your counterargument, apparently, is that it does not matter what people believe, godlike superintelligence is going to happen anyway, and in two years to boot. If you are right, the superintelligence will personally persuade me otherwise by the end of 2027 with its godlike capabilities (probably by joining TheMotte and using its inhuman debate skills to pwn me).
But I think we both know that won't happen.
Why do you think the big tech companies are investing hundreds of billions in massive datacentres, paying billions just to get elites like Noam back on their team? They're not doing this for fun, they're competing intensely for a cornucopia of wealth and power. They expect returns from that investment. Cornucopias are for enjoying the fruits of, not locking up in the basement.
The definition of superintelligence is pretty straightforward - something qualitatively smarter than a human like how we're qualitatively smarter than a monkey or dog. Better than the best of us at every intellectual task of significance.
The general trend is not specialized intelligences like the carrier-strike UAV that the USN made into a tanker and then pointlessly scrapped, the trend is big general entities like Gemini 2.5 or Claude 3.7 that can execute various complex operations in all kinds of modalities.
I'm arguing that superintelligences acting in the world must be taken seriously, that we can't afford to just laugh them off. Maybe 2027 is too soon, maybe not. I can't predict the future.
The US regulatory system is no match for superintelligence or even the people who are making it, this is how I can tell you're not grappling with the issue. Musk is basically in the cabinet, he's one of the players in the game. Big tech can tell Trump 'Tariffs? Lol no' and their will is done. That's mere human levels of influence and money, nothing superhuman. The humble fent dealer wipes his ass with the US regulatory system daily as he distributes poison to the masses. A superintelligence (working alone or with the richest, most influential organizations around) has no fear of some bureaucrats, it would casually produce 50,000 pages on why it's super duper legal actually and deserves huge subsidies to Beat China.
Approaches like 'just don't plug it into the internet' or 'stick a nuke beneath the datacenter' are not going to cut it. Deepseek is probably going to open-source whatever they come up with and that's a good thing. I don't want OpenAI birthing a god in a world of mortals, I don't want mortals trying to chain up beings smarter than themselves and incurring their ire, I want balance of power competition in a world populated by demigods, spirits and powers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link