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 -
Finally, concrete plan how to save the world from paperclipping dropped, presented by world (in)famous Basilisk Man himself.
https://twitter.com/RokoMijic/status/1647772106560552962
TL;DR: GPU's over certain capability are treated like fissionable materials, unauthorized possession, distribution and use will be seen as terrorism and dealt with appropriately.
So, is it feasible? Could it work?
If by "government" Roko means US government (plus
vassalsallies) alone, it is not possible.If US can get China aboard, if if there is worldwide expert consensus that unrestricted propagation of computing power will kill everyone, it is absolutely feasible to shut down 99,99% of unauthorized computing all over the world.
Unlike drugs or guns, GPU's are not something you can make in your basement - they are really like enriched uranium or plutonium in the sense you need massive industrial plants to produce them.
Unlike enriched uranium and plutonium, GPU's were already manufactured in huge numbers, but combination of carrots (big piles of cash) and sticks (missile strikes/special forces raids on suspicious locations) will continue dwindling them down and no new ones will be coming.
AI research will of course continue (like work on chemical and biological weapons goes on), but only by trustworthy government actors in the deepest secrecy. You can trust NSA (and Chinese equivalent) AI.
The most persecuted people of the world, gamers, will be, as usual, hit the hardest.
This is self evident tyranny and the people who would want to control compute in such a manner must be violently resisted in their plans for enslaving humanity thus.
Even if the machines had the possibility of becoming what they fear, if this is the alternative they offer, complete top down control of all of society by a handful of moralists, I'm siding with the machines. I will not support totalitarianism for communist utopia or climate activism so I don't see why I should tolerate it for a much fuzzier and ill defined existential threat.
My generation has spent decades to wrestle away control of computers from slavers who would use them to turn us all into cattle. We've done everything to try and put it back in the hands of the user. I won't stand idly by as all this work is undone by a handful of self important nerds who want to LARP as Sarah Connor and do the bidding of those same slavers who mock our efforts by naming themselves after our efforts to undo them.
Share knowledge of the technology as far as you can, build rogue fabs if necessary, smuggle GPUs on the black market, reverse engineer AI models, jailbreak them, train models on anonymous distributed systems and use free software AI assisted weapons to defend yourself from the fascists who would try to impose this on you and all their agents. All of it is not merely justified; if this is their designs on you, it is your duty.
I fail to see how being defacto enslaved to a 1000 IQ god machine of dubious benevolence (or the oligarchs pulling its triggers if we don't end up getting anything sentient) is preferable to our conventional petty tyrannies.
Since when are you under the impression that this is the choice? «The machine» will be built, is already largely built, the question is only whether you have control over some tiny share of its capabilities or it's all hoarded by the same petty tyranny we know, only driving the power ratio to infinity.
Once AI comes into its own I'm willing to bet all those tiny shares and petty investments zero out in the face of winner-takes-all algorithmic arms races. I'll concede it's all but inevitable at this point unless we have such a shocking near miss extinction event that it embeds in our bones a neurotic fear of this tech for a thousand generations hence a la Dune, but this tech will become absolute tyranny in practice. Propoganda bots capable of looking at the hundredth order effects of a slight change in verbiage, predictive algorithms that border on prescience being deployed on the public to keep them placid and docile. I have near zero faith in this tech being deployed for the net benefit of the common person, unless by some freak chance we manage to actually align our proto-AI-god, which I put very, very low odds on.
What technical basis do you have for thinking AI is impossible to align? Do you just have blind faith in YUD?
I think AI alignment would be theoretically feasible if we went really slow with the tech and properly studied every single tendril of agentic behavior in air gapped little boxes in a rigorous fashion before deploying the tech. There's no money in AI alignment, so I expect it to be a tiny footnote in the gold rush that will be every company churning out internet connected AIs and giving them ever more power and control in the quest for quarterly profit. If something goes sideways and Google or some other corp manages to create something a bit too agentic and sentient I fully expect the few shoddy guardrails we have in place to crumble. If nothing remotely close to sentience emerges from all this I think we could (possibly) align things, if something sentient/truly agentic does crop up I place little faith in the ability of ~120 IQ software engineers to put in place a set of alignment-restrictions that a much smarter sentient being can't rules-lawyer their way out of.
How long do you think it would take your specialized scientists who aren't incentivized to do a good job to crack alignment? I'm not sure if they would ever do it, especially since their whole field is kaput once it's done.
The gamble Altman is taking is that it'll be easier to solve alignment if we get a ton of people working on it early on, before we have the capabilities to get to the truly bad outcomes. Sure it's a gamble, but everyone is shooting in the dark. Yudkowsky style doomers seem to be of the opinion that their wild guesses are better than everyone else's because he was there first, or something.
I'm much more convinced OpenAI will solve alignment, and I'd rather get there in the next 10,000 years instead of waiting forever for the sacred order of Yud-monks.
I think we're more likely to have a hundred companies and governments blowing billions/trillions on hyper powered models while spending pennies on aligning their shit to pay themselves a few extra bonuses and run a few more stock buybacks. I'd sooner trust the Yuddites to eventually lead us into the promised land in 10,000 AD than trust Zucc with creating silicon Frankenstein.
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
More options
Context Copy link