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
Maybe someone here can help me with this.
What is the bull case, beyond drawing lines on a graph, for AI achieving superhuman, or even human, performance on tasks that are not quickly verifiable?
AI is quite clearly superhuman at self-contained programming problems. I haven't tried Fable, but I suspect that superhuman open ended software engineering is not far away, though I suspect that humans will have a role in architecture and problem setting as opposed to problem solving for some time more. I expect hardware work will also quickly go down this path, at least to some extent, and really anything that can be RLVR'd. That's enough to account for a huge portion of white collar work and carries serious cyber security risks. Both of those will have serious consequences, politically and militarily.
I am not convinced that AI is improving at anything like this rate for things that can't be RLVR'd, I.e. stuff where you can't generate enormous amounts of useful training data with an answer key. Radiologists continue to do just fine for themselves despite repeated promises of doom. I'm sure someone will chime in to say that the radiologists are there for liability reasons, but it's not as if they are now just hitting thumbs up/thumbs down on AI decisions all day.
Partly this is a sample efficiency question - there simply might not be enough data for them to learn this stuff to human level, and architectural advances that improve sample efficiency may lead to huge gains in quality. But it's not clear to me why people expect this to happen.
Humans existing and being good at these problems shows that it is possible to create an intelligence that can solve these problems to at least the skill level of a highly intelligent and competent human, without needing impossibly huge training sets to do so. The question is if we can replicate this on a computer. The bull case is that this is just a question of finding the right algorithm, and once we do, we will achieve AGI.
Since current AI can clearly help researchers write code faster, it stands to reason that the better AI we have access to, the faster we can improve the algorithm, which leads to a loop where better models are developed faster and faster. Once the models start approaching human-level intelligence they will be able to iteratively improve themselves without researcher oversight. And like that, we have justified drawing lines on the graph.
I think your points are good, and I am myself a bit of an AI sceptic. But I do see where the AI safety crowd is coming from. It may not be particularly likely that we get AGI in the near future. But the fact is that the possibility is there, and is significant enough that it currently cannot be dismissed out of hand. Thus it makes sense to halt development until we are certain that this research won't doom us all.
I find it ironic that this is the logic used by a group that pretty much universally rejects Pascal's Wager. Also, it wouldn't be the first time humanity has made this particular calculation- when the first atomic bomb was tested at Trinity, Oppenheimer was "pretty sure" it wouldn't cause a neutron chain reaction and ignite the atmosphere in a nuclear hellstorm, but he couldn't guarantee it. Infinite stakes do not necessarily require infinite caution.
Even if you take Pascal's wager seriously, it is not actually very useful. There are multiple religions that each claim their god created the world, with most of them being mutually exclusive. Thus Pascal's wager works about as well as an argument for believing in the Christian God as it does for believing in Allah.
Regarding the atomic bomb, they did the math which showed that a chain reaction was impossible prior to the test. We have no such proof against the dangers of AI. The equivalent would be a paper that shows the theoretical limits of how intelligent LLM's can get, and thus prove that the line will stop going up before we reach the point of AGI.
Pascal's wager is nearly the earliest example of decision theory, and it hardly makes sense to say that the many religions concern simply breaks decision theory. One can do a variety of things to analyze the probability space as well as the payoff space. For an example simplification, suppose there are two possible mutually exclusive levers you could pull, each with some chance of giving you massively large/infinite utility, and P(A pays out)=0.999 while P(B pays out)=0.001. (This is obviously an extreme case, but that's just to build intuition.) Alternatively, one can adjust probabilities such that maybe there's a third mutually exclusive lever that you can pull which has a guaranteed payoff of 1 or whatever. One can make further refinements.
The issue with mutually exclusive religions is that if you pull P(A) and it doesn't pay out, actually it was another faith all along, then you face infinite suffering for being an infidel who foolishly worshipped Jesus as God. You are incentivized to believe in whatever religion has the greatest punishment for nonbelievers to minimize your downside. But then that incentivizes others to make up religions with increasingly worse punishments in the afterlife in order to force you to adhere to the demands of their faith.
It is just not sustainable as there is no way to distinguish between a religion that is made up by humans and one that is actually correct. Playing that game is hopeless from the start.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Since there are more than one interpretations of p(doom), and they are mutually exclusive, pascal's wager is not a good argument for believing one of them over the other.
Why then do people invoke some principle of precaution when it comes to AI and not God? Both are claimed to be possible or extant based on unfalsifiable metaphysical assumptions.
And before you make one, remember that claims the metaphysics can be arrived at through intuitions about extant objects exist for both. But they all require an article of faith to arrive at the extraordinary conclusion.
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