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 -
Wel, like I said, it's not just the EAs, it's also the E/Accs that I have a problem with.
As for not being able to put the genie back in the bottle, yeah that's one of my fears, but I don't know if this is already decided. By current demographic trends, the Amish are scheduled to inherit America. AI might very well turn out to be a suicidal technology, and Luddites the only survivors.
There will be no survivors. You think not having a cell signal saves you from a Paperclip Maximizer that's demolishing the biosphere for spare parts? Come the fuck on.
I think the Paperclip Maximizer is a boogeyman, and if AI does cause us to go extinct, it will be in a completely different manner than the AI-safety people predict. Like I said above, this is precisely what drives me up the wall in this conversation.
I do not see how there's any remotely plausible world where AI somehow causes us to go extinct while sparing the Amish. Unless the Amish have some really sick data centers hidden under those barns of theirs.
The idea that homesteaders/preppers/the Amish might do better in a collapse of the modern world seems reasonable to me. We keep ant farms and shit, maybe the Amish long standing commitments to being low tech make them a safer prospective pet population. I also never understood why turning everything in the light cone into paperclips was so much more plausible than just all the easily available metal or other variations on the, AI with orthogonal values fucks up the world but doesn't actually make it uninhabitable.
That is an incredibly tenuous assumption to say the least!
A Maximizer maximizes, all resources for which the cost of extraction and utilization is less than the benefits of putting it to use will eventually be used, Earth's biosphere is not particularly attractive compared to the resources of the rest of the Universe, but it has the notable property of being right at Ground Zero where a hostile AGI can make use of it. And nothing prevents it from building Von Neumanns to claim the rest while it steadily munches on us.
Acquiring resources and power are convergent goals for an enormously wide range of possible values. You don't even need to be a monomaniacal Utility Maximizer to want more mass and energy to put to good use.
Humans are intelligent entities that can think and plan, and in this particular case, create yet more misaligned AGI, since you have an existence proof they just created one. They need to be eliminated or at least neutralized, the latter being far more likely.
I have seen no evidence that explicit maximzers do particularly well in real-world environments. Hell, even in very simple game environments, we find that bags of learned heuristics outperform explicit simulation and tree search over future states in all but the very simplest of cases.
I think utility maximizers are probably anti-natural. Have you considered taking the reward-is-not-the-optimization-target pill?
I'm using "Maximizer" in a looser sense than a strict utility maximizer. The reason is that acquiring power and resources are such highly convergent goals that most entities will look like they're maximizing acquiring them to us, even if they have entirely different terminal goals or sets of heuristics in mind.
Think about it this way, would you disagree with the statement that, for a wide range of ideologies or terminal values seen in humans, the Solar System and then the rest of the galaxy will be either colonized or broken down for resources, given sufficient amounts of time (and technological feasibility, which I think is a reasonable assumption)? Be they communists, ancaps or anything in between, optimization pressure to be efficient in their exploitation will leave them, from the perspective of some alien with a telescope, looking like something attempting to "maximize" the conquest of the light cone.
In a similar manner, I expect a misaligned AGI to be very likely to attempt to seize as much energy and mass as it can, even if it's not strictly optimizing for the same, and that the agents/toy models we've seen are simply not smart enough to pursue such strategies.
I have read that LW post, but I've forgotten what the takeaway was, so I'll give it another read!
I do see where you're coming from in terms of instrumental convergence. Mainly I'm pointing that out because I spent quite a few years convinced of something along the lines of
And it took me quite a while to notice that the foundation of my belief was built on an argument that looks like
And thinking this way kinda fucked me up for like 7 or 8 years. And then I spent some time doing mechinterp, and noticed that "maximize expected utility" looks nothing like what high-powered systems are doing, and that this was true even in places you would really expect to see EU maximizers (e.g. chess and go). Nor does it seem to be how humans operate.
And then I noticed that step 4 of that reasoning chain doesn't even follow from step 3, because "there exists some utility function that is consistent with the past behavior of the system" is not the same thing as "the system is actually trying to maximize that utility function".
We could still end up with deception and power seeking in AI systems, and if those systems are powerful enough that would still be bad. But I think the model where that is necessarily what we end up with, and where we get no warning of that because systems will only behave deceptively once they know they'll succeed (the "sharp left turn") is a model that sounds compelling until you try to obtain a gears-level understanding, and then it turns out to be based on using ambiguous terms in two ways and swapping between meanings.
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