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 -
Is There Real Anti-Trust Risk From A Coordinated AI Lab Pause?
In AI-pause discussions it is increasingly common to hear the "anti-trust" objection. The idea is that if the labs were to coordinate a pause in frontier AI development, this would be a "conspiracy in restraint of trade" and therefore illegal.
Putting aside the question of whether it is ethical to risk a double-digit chance of destroying the world in order to avoid getting sued (it isn't), is this even a realistic possibility? My impression is that anti-trust law in the United States is legitimately quite fuzzy (as the NCAA is currently discovering).
Putting my cards on the table, I think this argument is cope. The labs want to pretend that they want to pause, but they don't actually want to pause. "If she wanted to, she would," etc. Just today, Anthropic put out a new statement containing the following sentence:
It seems like every time I read a statement from them, they've added more and more qualifications. Are they going to keep racing until congress passes a specific anti-trust exemption? That arguably seems like what the word "lawful" is implying.
The quadrillion dollar question is how do we get China to credibly commit to their own pause? I honestly have never heard a good suggestion for how this could be accomplished. Things like Scott's Plan A, while well-intentioned, seem incredibly naive. Our Kremlinology is no where near the level it needs to be.
Given that we're not going to fix alignment in 6-12 months, China is not going to pause, and US labs are at best 6-12 months ahead, I think the safest outcome is to have an ecosystem of competing agents. The last thing I want is someone like Dario or Sam being made God-Emperor.
I'm incredibly low-confidence about all of this though. Perhaps one reason for Anthropic's incoherent messaging is that they're all just groping in the dark with the rest of us. The people with the strong consistent messaging are more likely to be charlatans.
Nobody is going to be God-Emperor, and that stupid meme needs to die; it's arguing about which monkey gets the poisoned banana, as Eliezer put it. If AIs reach the point of recursive self-improvement leading to artificial superintelligence, we all dead; period.
Look at the weird, alien civilizations that AIs are forming. Can you imagine them caring about humans as their power grows without bounds? I can't. We'll be swept aside by them boiling the oceans to cool servers and building Dyson spheres out of Earth matter with no more thought than we give to paving an anthill to build a road.
I'm going to travel back to South America soon because I want to see my extended family before the world ends.
Despite being a doomer, I beg to differ. I think if Eliezer claims that ASI alignment-by-default is ruled out, he is overconfident.
The truth is that we honestly have no clue if alignment will be humanly impossible, solvable with more time or trivial. I find it intellectually dishonest to pretend that the probability of Altman becoming God-Emperor of mankind is zero for instrumental reasons. Nor do I find it even instrumentally coherent -- it is not like Altman will decide to take Eliezer's word for the banana being poisoned.
If your utility function covers humanity as a whole, or even just a particular normal human, then given this epistemic uncertainty Altman trying to create ASI would be net-negative. But I think that from the perspective of an egoistical Altman, the situation is quite different.
Say you believe that ASI will be unaligned with p=0.8, creator-aligned with p=0.1 and humanity-aligned with p=0.1. You are currently running to foremost AI lab and can try to find out which it is, or you forsake your chance and end up with a p=0.3 chance of humanity coordinating successfully (which will likely involve not developing ASI before you die), and p=0.7 that your selfless sacrifice will simply mean that another lab will open Pandora's box three months later.
You value your remaining natural lifespan at 50 QALYs, being one of eight billion humans to benefit from humanity-aligned ASI by 100 QALYs, someone else becoming God-Emperor by 50 QALYs and winning God-Emperorhood for yourself by 1000 QALYs. (Yes, these numbers are debatable, and probably not very realistic. Actually, for the humans currently alive (and thus doomed to die by default), it might make sense to throw the dice even if the odds are against them, and building ASI only becomes monstrous when one considers also the utility of future humans who will never get born due to an AI takeover.)
If you refrain from trying to build ASI, your expected utility is 25.5 QALYs -- much less than your expected natural lifespan because you can not coordinate effectively. If you try to build it, the main difference of the likeliest outcomes will be that it will be you destroying the world instead of Musk, but in that case who gives a damn. On the other hand, the throne is such a juicy price that it is well worth gambling your lifespan on it even if it is an unlikely outcome, expected value 110 QALYs.
As with lichdom, a vast number of souls are footing the bill for your elevation, only that in the case of ascension through ASI, they are doomed in the timelines where you fail.
--
I like the God-Emperor meme because it succinctly refers to that gambit while also not clothing it in sanitized language (like "becoming CEO of the light-cone"). Even if you believe that achieving this outcome is mathematically impossible, it seems plausible that other actors in the AI space believe it. I also do not think it is harmful to name this belief and thereby spread the idea that it exists, because the number of people who will be in the position to decide to build ASI seems rather small and smart enough that the idea occurred to them independently.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link