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 anyone arguing for "give Eliezer and Scott full exclusive access to prompting the first ASI instead of Sam or Dario"?
Last time I was checking, they were mostly pushing for pausing the training of bigger models. Their take is not "we have solved alignment, here is the perfect list of preferences to give AI", but "alignment seems really hard, we should not build ASI until we have solved it".
Perhaps Eliezer believes in his heart of hearts that the best outcome is a society which uses the tools of totalitarianism to crack down on any AI development, but he is not in the position to do that and will never be.
If we manage to coordinate and build aligned ASI, then we will not simply put Eliezer's value system into it, because quite frankly Eliezer is not a critical stakeholder with whom one needs to coordinate. Likely the USG would get 30%, Anthropic and OpenAI would get 10% each, the Chinese would get another 30%, the rest of the world would get another 10% and LW would end up with less sway than the Catholic Church.
It's not personally Scott and Eliezer. It's the Oversight Committee (there's always a committee). But who do you think will influence forming the committee and who do you think the members of the committee would look for guidance when faced with tough decisions? Wouldn't it be the folks that convinced the government that the committee is needed in the first place? Or at least folks aligned with them?
He personally may be not. But some more savvy, slick and energetic politician taking cues from him might be. Marx or Gramsci did not personally take power.
If Eliezer does not matter, then it doesn't matter who says what about him. I am fine with this outcome, where whatever he says and does is immaterial and he has no influence on the outcome of things. I am afraid however it's not entirely the case, as a lot of people who are very knowledgeable in the industry and are at least adjacent to its control levers are significantly influenced by him (either personally or by the ideology he embodies). Maybe I am worrying for nothing, I'd be happy with that outcome too.
More options
Context Copy link
"We should not build AI to..." involves putting pressure on companies and legislators, and can easily lead to a situation where users don't get to control their own computers. "Ai should refuse to do X" is ultimately an attempt to DRM AI in the same way that media and video games are already DRMed.
If the experience with gun control or drug control teaches us something, it's how hard is to prevent people from doing something they want to do. And how much control does it require to have even a limited degree of success in it. Imagine a world where only ISIS and the Sinaloa cartel has the true AI... And the CIA/NSA of course but we don't talk about it. OTOH the regular citizens ae required to have government monitoring software on any device smarter than a thermostat.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link