AI alignment isn't the only problem. Most people's values are sufficiently unaligned with my own that find solving AI unattractive as a goal. Even if I had a robust lever to push, such as donating to an AI alignment research org or lobby think tank and it was actually cost-effective, the end result would still be unaligned (with me) values being loaded. So there are two steps rather than one: First, you have to make sure the people who create AI have values aligned with yours, and then you have to make sure that the AI has values aligned with the people creating it.
Frankly, this is hopeless from my perspective. Just the first step is impossible. I know this from years of discussions and debates with my fellow human beings, and from observing politics. The most basic litmus test for me is if they force fates worse than death on people who explictly disagree. In other words, if suffering is mandatory or if people will respect other people's right to choose painless death as an ultima ratio solution for their own selves (not forcing it on others). This is something so basic and trivial, and yet so existential that I consider it a question where no room for compromise is possible from my perspective. And I am observing that, even though public opinion robustly favors some forms of suicide rights, the governments of this world have completely botched the implementation. And that is just one source of disagreement, the one I choose as a litmus test because the morally correct answer is so obvious and non-negotiable from my perspective.
The upside opportunities from the alleged utopias we can achieve if we get the Singularity right also suffer from this problem. I used to think that if you can just make life positive enough, the downside risks might be worth taking. So we could implement (voluntary) hedonic enhancements, experience machines and pleasure wireheading offers to make it worthwhile for those people who want it. These could be so good that it would outweigh the risk, and investing in such future life could be worth it. But of course those technologies are decried as "immoral" also, by the same types of "moralists" who decry suicide rights. To quote former LessWrong user eapache:
...the “stimmer”‘s (the person with the brain-stimulating machine) is distinctly repugnant in a way that feels vaguely ethics-related.
...Anything that we do entirely without benefit to others is onanistic and probably wrong.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/e2jmYPX7dTtx2NM8w/when-is-it-wrong-to-click-on-a-cow
There is a lot of talk about "moral obligations" and "ethics" and very little about individual liberty and the ability to actually enjoy life to its fullest potential. People, especially the "moral" ones, demand Sacrifices to the Gods, and the immoral ones are just as likely to create hells over utopias. I see no value in loading their values into an AI, even if it could be done correctly and cost-effectively.
Luckily, I don't care about the fate of the world in reflective equilibrium, so I can simply enjoy my life with lesser pleasures and die before AGI takes over. At least this strategy is robust and doesn't rely on convincing hostile humans (outside of deterring more straightforward physical attacks in the near-term, which I do with basic weaponry) let alone solving the AGI problem. I "solve" climate change the same way.
DF was born with a time bomb in his genome, a deadly curse more horrifying than most. The name of this curse was Fatal familial insomnia (FFI).
Wikipedia describes the usual progression of this hell:
From the case report DF's psychologist wrote after his death:
Not only is there no cure for FFI; there is no known cure for any prion disease.
On the day it became clear he was experiencing the same symptoms his relatives did, DF must have known his chances were terrible. And even the minuscule odds that he could find a solution were marred by the fact that his problem-solving organ was the very part of him that was beginning to degrade.
And if there was a way out, how could he come up with a solution when he was so, so tired?
If only he could get just a little bit of rest.
There is a motivational technique I use occasionally where I look at my behavior and meditate on what my revealed preferences imply about my actual preferences. Often, I am disgusted.
I then note that I am capable of changing my behavior. And that all that is required to change my revealed preferences is to change my behavior. Though there is an element of sophistry in this line of thinking, I can report some anecdotal success.
Many of us here, like DF, believe we have a deadly curse - or at least we believe we believe we have a deadly curse.
Since I read The Basic AI Drives, I have known abstractly the world is doomed. Though my system 1 seems to have difficultly comprehending this, this belief implies I, and everyone and everything I love, am doomed, too.
Through the lens of my revealed preferences, I either do not truly think the alignment problem is much of a problem, am mostly indifferent to the destruction of myself and everything I care about, or I am choosing the ignoble path of the free-rider.
I notice I am disgusted. But this is good news. All that is required to change my revealed preferences is to change my behavior.
DF's first tools were those of his naturopathic trade. He reported some success with a vitamin cocktail of the standard throw-in-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink, alternative-medicine style.
Perhaps something in his cocktail had some effect as his progression was slower than normal. But slow progression is progression just the same:
Noticing the efficacy of the anesthetics, DF began to use them regularly:
In Irrational Modesty, I argue modesty is a paralytic preventing otherwise-capable people from acting on alignment:
There is another class of anesthetic whose key feature is a sort of detached emotional state, a feeling of being "above it" or "beyond it" or even "below it". Let's call "above it" and "beyond it" high detachment and "below it" low detachment.
Low detachment goes by names like "cynicism" or "nihilism". At its worst, one begins to take pleasure in one's own hopelessness, epitomized by this thought: I believe we are all doomed and there is nothing we can do about it. Isn't that metal!" If you find yourself thinking along those lines, imagine a man in a car hurtling towards a cliff thinking, I believe I am doomed and there is nothing I can do about it. Isn't that metal!".
High detachment goes by names like "enlightenment" and "awakening" and sometimes even "stoicism" It combines the, largely correct, realization that a great deal of suffering is caused by one's internal reactions to external events with the more questionable prescription of using this understanding to self-modify yourself towards a sort of "soft salvation" of resignation, acceptance, and the cultivation of inner peace.
One former hero of mine (a brilliant mathematician who was planning to work in alignment after grad school) was completely demoralized by this line of thinking.
He seems happier now. He seems more fulfilled. He seems to enjoy his meditation retreats.
He seems to have stopped working on avoiding the catastrophe that will kill him and most of the things he used to care about.
I consider this to be something of a shame.
Though DF's anesthetic regimen may have provided some relief, it was by no means a cure:
In this same month his condition worsened further and we began to see hints of DF's unusual mental strength and creativity:
Once phentermine became ineffective, he moved on to other stimulants.
As the stimulants and their come-downs faded in efficacy, DF began to try to physically exhaust himself, forcing himself (in a state of complete mental exhaustion) to go on long hikes.
In the 19 months from the onset of his symptoms and, one presumes, in a state of unimaginable desperation, he got more creative:
From a conversation with @TurnTrout on Discord
Just over 2 years after the onset of symptoms DF died of cardiac arrest, the result of heart damage from his FFI, his variegated treatments, and possibly drug withdrawal. He had lived 18 months longer than the typical case of FFI does.
In my mind, he died a hero's death.
It is probably too high school to end with the Dylan Thomas quotation. So I will just emphasize the rationalist cliche that we should strive to feel the emotion appropriate to the predicament we are in.
TurnTrout argues that Tsuyoku Naritai is not it, and maybe he is right. I do not know what the correct emotion feels like, but I think maybe DF knew.
Too high school — but then again: