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 -
AI 2040: Plan A
The AI 2027 authors published a follow-up. Scott Alexander also wrote a separate blogpost and although not in the author list contributed.
It's a very speculative and optimistic timeline of AI's future evolution. It presents five ways or "plans" the US government will intervene. Unsurprisingly, the ASI-pilled authors favor strong, global regulation to ensure alignment. Summaries:
Plan A (recommended): the US makes an international treaty with China, pauses AI training (not inference, i.e. no new models but we keep using existing ones), enforces full transparency of future research, then when alignment research advances enough carefully resumes
Plan S: the US makes an international treaty with China and pauses AI training for as long as possible
Plan B: the US regulates AI at home and demands China also regulate, but doesn't negotiate with them, probably leading to a war
Plan C: the US regulates AI and ignores China, so they overtake it and reach ASI first
Plan D: the US doesn't regulate AI, we get ASI in early 2031 and it probably kills everyone
Personally, I just don't share the optimism of these guys in either direction.
I think politicians will prioritize culture war and the failing economy over AI regulation, and at most pass some executive orders suggesting companies be more careful. But I also doubt we'll have ASI that can solve the abstract problems "take over the world" or even "keep existing world leaders in power" (they're getting old and increasingly unpopular, their parties may remain in power but only if their policies significantly shift).
What I expect from AI:
Basically solve legacy code by rewriting entire codebases, applying very niche domain knowledge, and actually finding and handling edge-cases better than humans
Greatly speedup research, leading to new discoveries and inventions. Important but background things like food preservation and medicine will improve from AI-assisted discoveries. Major advancements in math and theoretical physics
Much better and cheaper education, therapy, initial medical/legal appointments, personal repairs...maybe reducing but not eliminating human jobs, because human experts will offer these services "premium"
Won't replace human artists. Some advertisements and infographics will be AI but even some will still be human. At best it will assist them in a way where the human still fully controls the output, e.g. by generating code leading to new and improved software tools to learn, practice, and create art
Used by the vast majority as a personal assistant, but doesn't replace human relations
I think it's worse than that. They had, what, a decade of a head start on this subject? Two? Did they come up with a single actually applicable benchmark that can be used to judge a model's progress to "ASI"? Did they come up with a single benchmark to judge alignment?
I'm struggling to understand why I should listen to a single word they are saying.
I agree, whenever rationalist types discuss AI, it sounds like they're living in an alternate reality.
Yet their discussions are still interesting and, via insight, occasionally useful. Scott Alexander started (what eventually led to) this forum; him, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and others invented lots of terminology and concepts we take for granted. I doubt they would've if not for the same personality traits that cause them to keep being wrong about AI (mainly, logic over empiricism). A person can't predict anything without occasionally being wrong, or have any good ideas without occasional bad ideas.
The discussions are indeed interesting and maybe even worthwhile, but then they start dreaming of carving up the lightcone and we'll all have our own solar systems and be immortal uploaded transhumans working on how to reverse the heat death of the universe thanks to god-tier AI making us all post-Singularity post-scarcity, and I go "goodnight and good luck, boys" because even though I've loved SF since I was seven years of age, I've lived long enough to see the glowing forecasts of the dreams of my fellow nerds not come to pass now that we're in the far-flung glorious future age of the 21st century.
“It is well that I have heard you,” said Oyarsa. “For though your mind is feebler, your will is less bent than I thought. It is not for yourself that you would do all this.”
“No,” said Weston proudly in Malacandrian. “Me die. Man live.”
“Yet you know that these creatures would have to be made quite unlike you before they lived on other worlds.”
“Yes, yes. All new. No one know yet. Strange! Big!”
“Then it is not the shape of body that you love?”
“No. Me no care how they shaped.”
“One would think, then, that it is for the mind you care. But that cannot be, or you would love hnau wherever you met it.”
“No care for hnau. Care for man.”
“But if it is neither man’s mind, which is as the mind of all other hnau—is not Maleldil maker of them all?—nor his body, which will change—if you care for neither of these, what do you mean by man?”
This had to be translated to Weston. When he understood it, he replied:
“Me care for men—care for our race—what man begets—” he had to ask Ransom the worlds for race and beget.
“Strange!” said Oyarsa. “You do not love any one of your race—you would have let me kill Ransom. You do not love the mind of your race, nor the body. Any kind of creature will please you if only it is begotten by your kind as they now are. It seems to me, Thick One, that what you really love is no completed creature but the very seed itself: for that is all that is left.”
“Tell him,” said Weston when he had been made to understand this, “that I don’t pretend to be a metaphysician. I have not come here to chop logic. If he cannot understand—as apparently you can’t either—anything so fundamental as a man’s loyalty to humanity, I can’t make him understand it.”
But Ransom was unable to translate this and the voice of Oyarsa continued.
“I see now how the lord of the silent world has bent you. There are laws that all hnau know, of pity and straight dealing and shame and the like, and one of these is the love of kindred. He has taught you to break all of them except this one, which is not one of the greatest laws; this one he has bent till it becomes folly and has set it up, thus bent, to be a little, blind Oyarsa in your brain. And now you can do nothing but obey it, though if we ask you why it is a law you give no other reason for it than for all the other and greater laws which it drives you to disobey. Do you know why he has done this?”
“Me think no such person—me wise, new man—no believe all that old talk.”
“I will tell you. He has left you this one because a bent hnau can do more evil than a broken one. He has only bent you; but this Thin One who sits on the ground he has broken, for he has left him nothing but greed. He is now only a talking animal and in my world he could do no more evil than an animal. If he were mine I would unmake his body for the hnau in it is already dead. But if you were mine I would try to cure you. Tell me, Thick One, why did you come here?”
“Me tell you. Make man live all the time.”
“But are your wise men so ignorant as not to know that Malacandra is older than your own world and nearer its death? Most of it is dead already. My people live only in the handramits; the heat and the water have been more and will be less. Soon now, very soon, I will end my world and give back my people to Maleldil.”
“Me know all that plenty. This only first try. Soon they go on another world.”
“But do you not know that all worlds will die?”
“Men go jump off each before it deads—on and on, see?”
“And when all are dead?”
As theistic debates go, this appears to be a particularly crude one on part of Lewis. Not only being inherently deficient because he writes for both his side and his opponent, but also writing his opponent's side inarticulately. This is the equivalent of drawing the christian as the chad and the atheist as the soyjak.
If you dislike this one then you'll absolutely hate what he does in the sequel. One of the main ideas in the sequel is roughly "Sometimes you can't beat the devil in a battle of wits. Sometimes you just need to beat him to death (literally, physically, with your bare hands)."
More options
Context Copy link
Speaking as a Christian, one flaw in CS Lewis’ otherwise great writing is that he cannot depict atheism without curling his lip and stacking the deck. Agnosticism, yes, many of the defects of faith yes, but not atheism.
To be fair to him, he was at Oxford at the time when English socialite atheism was at its most arrogant and self absorbed, when atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) was a stance you took on to Make a Statement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I used to be firmly on the side of Brave New World being the relevant dystopia novel for our world rather than 1984. I've recently reread the space trilogy and I am forced to come to the conclusion that if half of what the techno-capitalists dreamed up turns out to be more than a power fantasy by a bunch of delusional nerds, the Space trilogy might turn out to be the best literary description of the evil facing us presently.
Lewis calling his villains NICE (the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments) and then we unironically get NICE (the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence).
He was spot-on about politicians just loving some acronym that sounds, well, nice in order to sell shit to the public 😁
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