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 -
Sooo, Big Yud appeared on Lex Fridman for 3 hours, a few scattered thoughts:
Jesus Christ his mannerisms are weird. His face scrunches up and he shows all his teeth whenever he seems to be thinking especially hard about anything, I didn't remember him being this way in the public talks he gave a decade ago, so this must either only be happening in conversations, or something changed. He wasn't like this on the bankless podcast he did a while ago. It also became clear to me that Eliezer cannot become the public face of AI safety, his entire image, from the fedora, to the cheap shirt, facial expressions and flabby small arms oozes "I'm a crank" energy, even if I mostly agree with his arguments.
Eliezer also appears to very sincerely believe that we're all completely screwed beyond any chance of repair and all of humanity will die within 5 or 10 years. GPT4 was a much bigger jump in performance from GPT3 than he expected, and in fact he thought that the GPT series would saturate to a level lower than GPT4's current performance, so he doesn't trust his own model of how Deep Learning capabilities will evolve. He sees GPT4 as the beginning of the final stretch: AGI and SAI are in sight and will be achieved soon... followed by everyone dying. (in an incredible twist of fate, him being right would make Kurzweil's 2029 prediction for AGI almost bang on)
He gets emotional about what to tell the children, about physicists wasting their lives working on string theory, and I can see real desperation in his voice when he talks about what he thinks is really needed to get out of this (global cooperation about banning all GPU farms and large LLM training runs indefinitely, on the level of even stricter nuclear treaties). Whatever you might say about him, he's either fully sincere about everything or has acting ability that stretches the imagination.
Lex is also a fucking moron throughout the whole conversation, he can barely even interact with Yud's thought experiments of imagining yourself being someone trapped in a box, trying to exert control over the world outside yourself, and he brings up essentially worthless viewpoints throughout the whole discussion. You can see Eliezer trying to diplomatically offer suggested discussion routes, but Lex just doesn't know enough about the topic to provide any intelligent pushback or guide the audience through the actual AI safety arguments.
Eliezer also makes an interesting observation/prediction about when we'll finally decide that AIs are real people worthy of moral considerations: that point is when we'll be able to pair midjourney-like photorealistic video generation of attractive young women with chatGPT-like outputs and voice synthesis. At that point he predicts that millions of men will insist that their waifus are actual real people. I'm inclined to believe him, and I think we're only about a year or at most two away from this actually being a reality. So: AGI in 12 months. Hang on to your chairs people, the rocket engines of humanity are starting up, and the destination is unknown.
I would enjoy engaging more with the AGI x-risk doomer viewpoint. I fully agree AI narrow risks are real, and AI sentience/morality issues are important. Where my skepticism lies is when presented with this argument:
Human intelligence is apparently bounded by our biology
Machine intelligence runs on machines, which is not bounded by biology!
Therefore, it may rapidly surpass our intelligence
Machine intelligence may even be able to improve its own intelligence, at an exponential rate, and develop Godlike power relative to us
This would be really bad if the MI was not aligned with humanity
We can't (yet) prove it's aligned with humanity!
Panicdoom
Where I have trouble is #2-4.
One variant of this Godlike argument I've seen (sorry if this comes across as a strawman, gaining traction on this debate is part of why I'm even asking) is that humans just becoming a little bit smarter than monkeys let us split atoms and land on the moon. Something much smarter than us might continue to discover fundamental laws about reality and they would similarly be Gods compared to us.
The reason I don't buy it is because we've been able to augment our intelligence with computers for some time now: by moving our thinking into computers we can hold more stuff in our head, evaluate enormous computations, have immediate recall, and go real fast. Sadly, the number of new game-changing fundamental laws of nature that have popped out of this have been approximately zero.
I believe we've discovered all of the fundamental laws of nature low-hanging fruit and the higher hanging fruit just isn't so computationally reducible: to learn more about reality we'll have to simulate it, and this is going to require the marshaling of an enormous degree of computation resources. I'm thinking less on the scale of entire data-centers in The Dalles full of GPUs and more like something the size of the moon made of FPGAs.
Stated another way, what I think holds humanity back from doing more amazing stuff isn't that we've failed to think hard and deep and uncover more fundamental truths and we could do that if we were smarter. What holds us back are coordination issues and simply the big hill to climb to boot up being able to harness more and bigger sources of energy and mine progressively stronger and rarer materials.
An AGI that wanted to do game-changing stuff to us would need to climb similar hills, which is a risk but that's not really a Godlike adversary -- we'd probably notice moon-sized FPGAs being built.
I recognize an AGI that was fast and coordinated and numerous could be a dangerous adversary too, but I'd like to only focus on why we think a massive increase in IQ (or rather, g) is the big x-risk.
Your core misunderstanding is assuming that the AI will have to discover new fundamental laws of nature in order to reliably kill everyone. The AI doesn't need to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity to make super-smallpox. It just needs really good computational biochemistry skills.
I think the most common failure mode for people who don't get how AI could physically kill everyone is that they don't realize all the crazy shit that proteins can do.
Well, not just really good computational biochemistry skills? Wouldn't it also need a revolution in synbio to access an API where it input molecules and they were then produced? Where would that get sent? How do you convince people to inhale it?
Aside: I expect this synbio revolution would usher in an era of corresponding print-at-home immunity, reducing the threat vector from bespoke bioweapons. I don't expect all x-risk from weapons defense to be this symmetrical, shooting down an ICBM is much much harder than launching one for example. I would like to be as concrete as possible about the risks though.
Right here. You literally just type in the DNA sequence. Of course, that's assuming there are no biotech labs that have hooked up the AI directly to the protein synthesis machines to streamline development.
"Introducing Project Telos, a groundbreaking first-line clinical trial harnessing the power of a retrovirus to deliver telomere-repair enzymes into somatic cells. Join us in revolutionizing healthcare and longevity by combating age-related diseases, enhancing tissue repair, and promoting overall well-being. As a participant, you'll play a crucial role in shaping the future of regenerative medicine, while gaining exclusive access to potential health benefits. Be a part of history and help unlock the potential for a healthier, longer life."
And yes, GPT-4 wrote that.
Welcome to the future.
Let me see if I understand the threat model.
Unaligned AGI decides humans are a problem, engineers virus more infectious than measles with very long asymptomatic incubation period and 100% lethality.
Virus is submitted to idtdna.com with stolen payment info that the AGI hacked from elsewhere.
Idtdna.com processes the request, builds the supervirus, and ships it somewhere.
????
Everyone dies.
I assume you'll have a clever solution for 4.
Why do you assume the lab would synthesize any arbitrary protein? Surely they would want some confidence they're not building a dangerous supervirus?
Or are we assuming the evil AGI can submit a convincing doc with it that says it's totally benign?
It might be difficult to find an individual lab to synthesize the whole virus from scratch. You could do it by coming up with a 2-component capsid which spontaneously assembles in aqueous solution at a particular pH, getting two individual shipments of the two capsid proteins, getting a third shipment containing the viral genome, then mixing them together and adjusting the pH.* You could bribe, brainwash, or trick an undergrad to do this part.
Sequences are blacklisted, not whitelisted. The whole point of research is that you don't know exactly what the proteins are going to do yet. It would not be hard for the AI to come up with sequences that look benign at first glance. If need-be, yes, a convincing doc could be submitted. GPT-4 could probably do that part today.
I admit I'm a bit confused here. Do you need an explanation for how we get from "supervirus in a tube" to "everyone dies"? Imagine Covid but with a 3-month incubation period and a 100% fatality rate. Convince an undergrad to pour it over his face or something. Tell him its the Fountain of Youth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Super-smallpox" is a metaphor. There's no reason an engineered pathogen needs to bear an apparent similarity to any known pathogen.
An AI that's solved protein-folding can make its own custom restriction enzymes and ligases with different nucleotide substrates than are currently known (good luck predicting the substrate from the amino acid sequence without the AI's help). The final DNA sequence need not be obvious from the fragments sent to the lab for first synthesis.
Maybe the virus looks like it isn't replication-competent? Maybe they even run tests on an immortal cell-line in a petri dish. Perfectly safe right? Uh-oh, turns out it was specifically designed to not replicate in the exact cell-line used for testing. Whoops.
This is what Eliezer means by "security mindset". The above safeguards are the equivalent of computer security via increasingly large passwords. It is predictable that they will fail, even if you can't see the exact failure scenario.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are prions a legitimate thing to worry about given that Brits ate prion tainted beef for like a decade and nothing happened?
Well, a hundred people died or so, all of whom shared a certain rare mutation.
I guess there's also Kuru, but are we certain that tribe wasn't inbred, with weird genetic susceptibility to it ?
Of course, that doesn't rule out some funny AI reading through themotte.org for inspiration and then figuring out especially good prions against whom we aren't mostly immune, I guess. Well, hello to you if you're reading this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link