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 -
You imply that companies will be vetted, I take it.
This is discussed in the paper and supplements in fairly high detail, I do recommend you read it, because it is after all a historical moment, white-collar verbal parity.
In short, their concern is AI reducing the amount of human expertise (and therefore capital) needed to achieve a given outcome; they say it's not a big concern yet, because other forms of capital, like specialized tools, limit the applicability of even superhuman LLM advice.
Very strong private AIs, however, could no doubt help with securing resources and building increasingly closed production loops too (say, in Iranian dungeons), and from what we see, they no longer require data centers to run; then... what?
A literally who Eric Schmidt has an answer in line with the big Eric Schmidt:
(btw, my whimsical definition of singularity: an AI can make, without significant human guidance, a convincing counter to a world-class AI skeptic's critique of itself).
I don't think I misinterpret you, inasmuch as I responded to your core argument at all – which admittedly I failed to do. OpenAI argue, more or less, that it doesn't matter if the model can give militant Islamists superhuman financial or technical advice, because executing on it is bottlenecked by stuff other than knowledge, and I agree generally. A-bombs are an almost century-old technology, a bright high schooler could build one (not American grade, but workable) – yet see Iran's travails. Producing pathogens is infeasible due to the lack of regulated hardware and trained lab hands. Second-order moneymaking schemes still happen on the same zero-sum market and cannot change the status quo. And so on.
You know that bayesianism is all about shutting up and calculating. Possible utilons, possible timelines where life persists. I think they would prefer an American singleton to what they call a «multipolar trap». In fact, in the end of HPMOR it is made clear that Voldemort's rule, albeit eternally tyrannical and inhuman in comparison to Harry's cunning schemes, is preferable to magic proliferation; and since Yud has a one-track mind, we don't have much reason to doubt who maps to whom. (I concede they'd have accepted CPP just as well, were it in the lead).
If I'm correct about Jason Matheny and his ilk, the AI safety project is fairly serious. Yuddites at this point are only its radical wing, the cringeworthy, violently loud Extinction Rebellion to the credentialized, respectable, degrowth-promoting juggernaut of Green Parties.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link