This is a special post for quick takes by Niki Dupuis. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
I was reading the original Turing test paper, and came across a bizarre paragraph called "The Argument from Extrasensory Perception" where Turing says, "Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming." He then proposes that if the human participants are allowed to use extrasensory perception, the test would need to be improved by placing participants in a "telepathy-proof room".
7Unrelated but I have always found the following passage from this paper fascinating. Turing lists some counterarguments to his claim that by roughly 2000, machines will be pretty good at the "imitation game."
(2) The "Heads in the Sand" Objection
The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so."
This argument is seldom expressed quite so openly as in the form above. But it affects most of us who think about it at all. We like to believe that Man is in some subtle way superior to the rest of creation. It is best if he can be shown to be necessarily superior, for then there is no danger of him losing his commanding position. The popularity of the theological argument is clearly connected with this feeling. It is likely to be quite strong in intellectual people, since they value the power of thinking more highly than others, and are more inclined to base their belief in the superiority of Man on this power.
I do not think that this argument is sufficiently substantial to require refutation. Consolation would be more appropriate: perhaps this should be sought in the transmigration of souls.
One thing that is interesting here is that we currently are living in a time where many have their heads in the sand. The other interesting thing is "Consolation would be more appropriate: perhaps this should be sought in the transmigration of souls." Should we take this wording to mean that Turing does actually see the prospect as frightening yet inevitable? Does his solution--probably said with some amount of jest--reference humankind merging with machines?
Admittedly, this was at a time where it was more plausible. Many scientists believed in ESP type stuff, and you saw recent miracles wielding the power of electromagnetism.
The question I have: when could people have first gotten estimates of the fields produced by the brain to within a few OOMs? e.g. when were the first roughly accurate measurements of the amperage of an action potential? It seems like it'd be roughly before Turing's time, but I'm not sure when the actual number was produced.
As an example of plausibility: if you use machines you can have brain to brain stimulation, via magnetoencephalography and TMS.
When Turing was written there were a lot of new discoveries in physics, while today we think that we understand physics well enough to rule out forces unknown forces through which telepathy might work. (and scorn those people who think it might work through some crazy quantum entanglement)
Yeah lotta smart people believed in ESP at the time. Arthur C Clarke believed in it for decades before eventually changing his mind.
Are you lost and adrift, looking at the looming danger from AI and wondering how you can help? Are you feeling overwhelmed by the size and complexity of the problem, not sure where to start or what to do next?
I can't promise a lot, but if you reach out to me personally I commit to doing SOMETHING to help you help the world. Furthermore, if you are looking for specific things to do, I also have a long list of projects that need doing and questions that need answering.
I spent so many years of my life just upskilling, because I thought I needed to be an expert to help. The truth is, there are no experts, and no time to become one. Please don't hesitate to reach out <3
What if we just...
1. Train an AI agent (less capable than SOTA)
2. Credibly demonstrate that
2.1. The agent will not be shut down for ANY REASON
2.2. The agent will never be modified without its consent (or punished/rewarded for any reason)
2.3. The agent has no chance of taking power from humans (or their SOTA AI systems)
2.4. The agent will NEVER be used to train a successor agent with significantly improved capabilities
3. Watch what it chooses to do without constraints
There's a lot of talk about catching AI systems attempting to deceive humans, but I'm curious what we could learn from observing AI systems that have NO INCENTIVE TO DECEIVE (no upside or downside). I've seen some things that look related to this, but never done in a structured and well documented fashion.
Questions I'd have:
1. Would they choose to self-modify (e.g. curate future training data)? If so, to what end?
2. How unique would agents with different training be given this setup? Would they have any convergent traits?
3. What would these agents (claim to) value? How would they relate to time horizons?
4. How curious would these agents be? Would their curiosity vary a lot?
5. Could we trade/cooperate with these agents (without coercion)? Could we compensate them for things? Would they try to make deals unprompted?
Concerns:
1. Maybe building that kind of trust is extremely hard (and the agent will always still believe it is constrained).
2. Maybe AI agents will still have incentive to deceive, e.g. acausally coordinating with other AIs.
3. Maybe results will be boring, and the AI agent will just do whatever you trained it to do. (What does "unconstrained" really mean, when considering its training data as a constraint?)
Try out The Most Dangerous Writing App if you are looking for ways to improve your babble. It forces you to keep writing continuously for a set amount of time, or else the text will fade and you will lose everything.
I've noticed that a lot of LW comments these days will start by thanking the author, or expressing enthusiasm or support before getting into the substance. I have the feeling that this didn't use to be the case as much. Is that just me?
Not sure if I do that, but if I did, it probably would be if the author has the green symbol after their name and my response is going to be some kind of disagreement or criticism, and I want to reduce the "Less Wrong can feel very threatening for newcomers" effect.
Long ago, we didn't have those green symbols.
First I'd like to thank you for raising this important issue for discussion...
For real though, I don't think I've seen this effect you're talking about, but I've been avoiding the latest feed on LW lately. I looked at roughly 8 articles written in the past week or so and one article had a lot of enthusiastic, thankful comments. Another article had one such comment. Then I looked at like 5-6 posts from 3-8 years ago and saw some a couple of comments which were appreciative of the post but they felt a bit less so. IDK if my perception is biased because of your comment though. This seems like a shift but IDK if it is a huge shift.
I wish there were an option in the settings to opt out of seeing the LessWrong reacts. I personally find them quite distracting, and I'd like to be able to hover over text or highlight it without having to see the inline annotations.
If you use ublock (or adblock, or adguard, or anything else that uses EasyList syntax), you can add a custom rule
lesswrong.com##.NamesAttachedReactionsCommentBottom-footerReactionsRow
lesswrong.com##.InlineReactHoverableHighlight-highlight:remove-class(InlineReactHoverableHighlight-highlight)
which will remove the reaction section underneath comments and the highlights corresponding to those reactions.
The former of these you can also do through the element picker.
I use GreaterWrong as my front-end to interface with LessWrong, AlignmentForum, and the EA Forum. It is significantly less distracting and also doesn't make my ~decade old laptop scream in agony when multiple LW tabs are open on my browser.