Are we too confident about unaligned AGI killing off humanity?
12Stephen Fowler
10Felix C.
2same
7Tachikoma
6same
5Qumeric
4RomanS
3Lone Pine
5Vladimir_Nesov
15Jordan Taylor
2Vladimir_Nesov
-1RomanS
8quanticle
2Seth Herd
2mukashi
6JBlack
3mukashi
9Roko
6Fergus Fettes
5rvnnt
0Fergus Fettes
6Roko
2Lone Pine
-1Fergus Fettes
11Tetraspace
4Fergus Fettes
4Tetraspace
2the gears to ascension
1rvnnt
2Fergus Fettes
3rvnnt
3Fergus Fettes
2rvnnt
2Fergus Fettes
3AnthonyC
3Roko
1quetzal_rainbow
8nem
6Shmi
5ryan_greenblatt
2Fergus Fettes
8quanticle
1Fergus Fettes
6quanticle
5Vladimir_Nesov
5quanticle
-8[anonymous]
2quanticle
3[anonymous]
2Fergus Fettes
5quanticle
-2Fergus Fettes
7quanticle
3Fergus Fettes
5quanticle
1Fergus Fettes
2quanticle
6Fergus Fettes
1RomanS
-3[anonymous]
4danbmil99
3Fergus Fettes
4danbmil99
1[comment deleted]
New Answer
New Comment
8 Answers sorted by
125
Humans are at risk from an unaligned AI not because of our atoms being harvested but because the resources we need to live will be harvested or poisoned, as briefly described by Critch.
Be wary of taking the poetic analogy of "like humans to ants" too far and think that it is a literal statement about ants. The household ant is the exception not the rule.
Our relationship to an unaligned AI will be like the relationship between humans and the unnamed species of butterfly that went extinct while you were reading this.
102
I think the example of humans militaries to ants is a bit flawed, for two main reasons.
1. Ants don't build AGI - Humans don't care about ants because they're so uncoordinated in comparison, and can't pose much of a threat. Humans can pose a significant threat to an ASI - building another ASI.
2. Ants don't collect gold - Humans, unlike ants, control a lot of important resources. If every ant nest was built on a pile of gold, you can best believe humans would actively look for and kill ants. Not because we hate ants, but because we want their gold. An unaligned ASI will want our chip factories, our supply chains, bandwidth, etc. All of which we would be much better off keeping.
Adding to the line of reasoning.
- Humans are not living on anthills - AGI will be from earth. Imagine you spontaneously come into being on an an anthill with no immediate way of leaving. Suddenly making sure the ants don't eat your food becomes much more interesting.
70
Early rationalist writing on the threats of unaligned AGI emerged out of thinking on GOFAI systems that were supposed to operate on rationalist or logical thought processes. Everything is explicitly coded and transparent. Based on this framework, if an AI system operates on pure logic, then you'd better ensure that you specify a goal that doesn't leave any loopholes in it. In other words, AI would follow the laws exactly as they were written, not as they were intended by fuzzy human minds or the spirit animating them. Since the early alignment researchers could figure out how to logically specify human values and goals that would parse for a symbolic AI without leaving loopholes large enough to threaten humanity, they grew pessimistic about the whole prospect of alignment. This pessimism has infected the field and remains with us today, even with the rise of deep learning with deep neural networks.
I will leave you with a quote from Eliezer Yudkowsky which I believe encapsulates this old view of how AI, and alignment, were supposed to work.
Most of the time, the associational, similarity-based
architecture of biological neural structures is a terrible
inconvenience. Human evolution always works with neural
structures - no other type of computational substrate is
available - but some computational tasks are so ill-suited to the
architecture that one must turn incredible hoops to encode them
neurally. (This is why I tend to be instinctively suspicious of
someone who says, 'Let's solve this problem with a neural net!'
When the human mind comes up with a solution, it tends to phrase
it as code, not a neural network. 'If you really understood the
problem,' I think to myself, 'you wouldn't be using neural
nets.') - Contextualizing seed-AI proposals
61
A different argument why instrumtal converge will not kill us all. Isn't it possible that we will have a disruptive, virus-like AI before AGI?
I agree with the commonly held view that AGI (i.e. recursively improving & embodied) will take actions that can be considered very harmful to humanity.
But isn't it much more likely that we will first have an AI that is only embodied without yet being able to improve itself? As such it might copy itself. It might hold bank accounts hostage until people sign up for some search engine. It might spy on people through webcams. But it won't go supernova because making a better model than the budget of Google or Microsoft can produce is hard.
And if that happens we will notice. And when we notice maybe there will be action to prevent a more catastrophic scenario.
Would love to hear some thoughts on this.
54
Uhm, I don't think anybody (even Eliezer) implies 99.9999%. Maybe some people imply 99% but it's 4 orders of magnitude difference (and 100 times more than the difference between 90% and 99%).
I don't think there are many people who think 95%+ chance, even among those who are considered to be doomerish.
And I think most LW people are significantly lower despite being rightfully [very] concerned. For example, this Metaculus question (which is of course not LW but the audience intersects quite a bit) is only 13% mean (and 2% median)
The OP here. The post was inspired by this interview by Eliezer:
My impression after watching the interview:
Eliezer thinks that the unaligned AGI, if created, will almost certainly kill us all.
Judging by the despondency he expresses in the interview, he feels that the unaligned AGI is about as deadly as a direct shot right in the head from a large-caliber gun. So, at least 99%.
But I can't read his mind, so maybe my interpretation is incorrect.
13% mean (and 2% median)
If you switch "community weighting" to "uniform" you see that historically almost everyone has answered 1%.
55
Humans are dangerous while they control infrastructure and can create more AGIs. Resolving this issue specifically by taking the toys away, perhaps even uploading the civilization? Seems unnecessarily complicated, unless that's an objective.
Then there're the consequences of disassembling Earth (because it's right here), starting immediately. Unless leaving humans alive is an objective, that's not the outcome.
unless that's an objective
I think this is too all-or-nothing about the objectives of the AI system. Following ideas like shard theory, objectives are likely to come in degrees, be numerous and contextually activated, having been messily created by gradient descent.
Because "humans" are probably everywhere in its training data, and because of naiive safety efforts like RLHF, I expect AGI to have a lot of complicated pseudo-objectives / shards relating to humans. These objectives may not be good - and if they are they probably won't constitute alignment, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were enough to make it do something more complicated than simply eliminating us for instrumental reasons.
Of course the AI might undergo a reflection process leading to a coherent utility function when it self-improves, but I expect it to be a fairly complicated one, assigning some sort of valence to humans. We might also have some time before it does that, or be able to guide this values-handshake between shards collaboratively.
2
In the framing of the grandparent comment, that's an argument that saving humanity will be an objective for plausible AGIs. The purpose of those disclaimers was to discuss the hypothetical where that's not the case. The post doesn't appeal to AGI's motivations, which makes this hypothetical salient.
For LLM simulacra, I think partial alignment by default is likely. But even more generally, misalignment concerns might prevent AGIs with complicated implicit goals from self-improving too quickly (unless they fail alignment and create more powerful AGIs misaligned with them, which also seems likely for LLMs). This difficulty might make them vulnerable to being overtaken by an AGI that has absurdly simple explicitly specified goals, so that keeping itself aligned (with itself) through self-improvement would be much easier for it, and it could undergo recursive self-improvement much more quickly. Those more easily self-improving AGIs probably don't have humanity in their goals.
Humans are dangerous while they control infrastructure and can create more AGIs.
I agree. But that's true only for a very short time. I think it is certain that the rapidly self-improving AGI of superhuman intelligence will find a way to liberate itself from the human control within seconds at most. And long before humans start to consider switching off the entire Internet, the AGI will become free from the human infrastructure.
The AGI competition is a more serious threat. No idea what is the optimal solution here, but it may or may not involve killin...
8
I think the misconception here is that the AGI has to conceive of humans as an existential threat for it to wipe them out. But why should that be the case? We wipe out lots of species which we don't consider threats at all, merely by clearcutting forests and converting them to farmland. Or damming rivers for agriculture and hydropower. Or by altering the environment in a myriad number of other ways which make the environment more convenient for us, but less convenient for the other species.
Why do you think an unaligned AGI will leave Earth's biosphere alone? What if we're more akin to monarch butterflies than ants?
EDIT: (to address your sloth example specifically)
Sure, humanity isn't waging some kind of systematic campaign against pygmy three-toed sloths. At least, not from our perspective. But take the perspective of a pygmy three-toed sloth. From the sloth's perspective, the near-total destruction of its habitat sure looks like a systematic campaign of destruction. Does the sloth really care that we didn't intend to drive it to extinction while clearing forests for housing, farms and industry?
Similarly, does it really matter that much if the AI is being intentional about destroying humanity?
20
I think there's a key error in the logic you present. The idea that a self-improving AGI will very quickly become vastly superior to humanity is based on the original assumption that AGI will consist of a relatively compact algorithm that is mostly software-limited. The newer assumption is vastly slower takeoffs, perhaps years long, but almost certainly much larger than seconds, as hardware-limited neural network AGI finds larger servers or designs and somehow builds more efficient hardware. This scenario puts an AGI in vastly more danger from humanity than your fast takeoff scenario.
Edit: this is not to argue that the correct estimate is as high as 99.999; I'm just making this contribution without doing all the logic and math on my best estimate.
20
"But I don't get the confidence about the unaligned AGI killing off humanity. The probability may be 90%, but it's not 99.9999% as many seem to imply, including Eliezer."
I think that 90% is also wildly high, and many other people around think so too. But most of them (with perfectly valid criticisms) do not engage in discussions in LW (with some honourable exceptions, e.g. Robin Hanson a few days ago, but how much attention did it draw?)
I don't have any definite estimate, just that it's Too Damn High for the path we are currently on. I don't think anyone has a good argument for it being lower then 5%, or even 50%, but I wouldn't be surprised if we survived and in hindsight those were justifiable numbers.
I also don't think there is any good argument for it being greater than 90%, but this is irrelevant since if you're making a bet on behalf of humanity with total extinction on one side at anything like those probabilities, you're a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up.
I would say that...
3
"I don't think anyone has a good argument for it being lower then 5%, or even 50%,"
That's false. There are many, many good arguments. In fact, I would say that it is not only that, it is also that many of the arguments pro-doom are very bad. The only problem is that the conversation in LW on this topic is badly biased towards one camp and that's creating a distorted image on this website. People arguing against doom tend to be downvoted way more easily than people pro-doom. I am not saying that I don't think it is a relevant problem , something people shouldn't work on, etc.
I don't harvest ants for atoms. There are better sources.
Atoms are not a binding constraint for you. Your binding constraints are other stuff (like money, time, health).
Raw carbon atoms aren't that much of a constraint for the human economy. Land, energy and particularly human capital are the taut constraints.
If there was a system which was really good at harvesting energy and it was maxxed out on intelligence, atoms might be very valuable, especially atoms close to where it is created.
The US military is not waging wars against mentally disabled sloth babies.
The USSR did wage a "war" against whales to kill them for quotas. They just didn't need to use the military for it - that would be overkill.
It's not that widely known. Many species have gone extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
"The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates, and is increasing"
So, overall it seems that instrumental convergence and physics setting up conflicts over the use of atoms argue fairly strongly in favor of human extinction, or worse.
If there was a system which was really good at harvesting energy and it was maxxed out on intelligence, atoms might be very valuable, especially atoms close to where it is created
The number of atoms on earth is so tiny. Why not just head to the asteroid belt where you can really build?
Why not both? Why leave value lying around? (Also, the asteroid belt containing Ceres and Vesta contains several orders of magnitude less matter than Earth. Maybe you meant "why not go colonize the Milky Way and other galaxies"?)
If the ASI was 100% certain that there was no interesting information embedded in the Earths ecosystems that it couldn't trivially simulate, then I would agree.
This is a cope. Superintelligence would definitely extract all the info it could, then disassemble us, then maybe simulate us but I got into trouble for talking about that so let's not go there.
Maybe you got into trouble for talking about that because you are rude and presumptive?
definitely
as a human talking about ASI, the word 'definitely' is cope. You have no idea whatsoever, but you want to think you do. Okay.
extract all the info it could
we don't know how information works at small scales, and we don't know whether an AI would either. We don't have any idea how long it would take to "extract all the info it could", so this phrase leaves a huge hole.
them maybe simulate us
which presumes that it is as arrogant in you in 'knowing' what it can 'definitely' simulate. I don't know that it will be so arrogant.
I'm not sure how you think you benefit from being 100% certain about things you have no idea about. I'm just trying to maintain a better balance of beliefs.
Maybe you got into trouble for talking about that because you are rude and presumptive?
I think this is just a nod to how he's literally Roko, for whom googling "Roko simulation" gives a Wikipedia article on what happened last time.
Everyone here acting like this makes him some kind of soothsayer is utterly ridiculous. I don't know when it became cool and fashionable to toss off your epistemic humility in the face of eternity, I guess it was before my time.
The basilisk is just pascals mugging for edgelords.
Whatever happened here is an interesting datapoint about the long-term evolution of thermodynamic systems away from equilibrium.
From the biological anchors paper:
This implies that the total amount of computation done over the course of evolution from the first animals with neurons to humans was (~1e16 seconds) * (~1e25 FLOP/s) = ~1e41 FLOP.
Note that this is just computation of neurons! So the total amount of computation done on this planet is much larger.
This is just illustrative, but the point is that what happened here is not so trivial or boring that its clear that an ASI would not have any interest in it.
I'm sure people have written more extensively about this, about an ASI freezing some selection of the human population for research purposes or whatever. I'm sure there are many ways to slice it.
I just find the idea that the ASI will want my atoms for something trivial, when there are so many other atoms in the universe that are not part of a grand exploration of the extremes of thermodynamics, unconvincing.
Whatever happened here is an interesting datapoint about [...]
I think using the word "interesting" here is kinda assuming the conclusion?
Whatever happened here is a datapoint about the long-term evolution of thermodynamic systems away from equilibrium.
Pretty much all systems in the universe can be seen as "thermodynamic systems". And for a system to evolve at all, it necessarily has to be away from equilibrium. So it seems to me that that sentence is basically saying
"Whatever happened here is a datapoint about matter and energy doing their usual thing over a long period of time."
And... I don't see how that answers the question "why would an ASI find it interesting?"
From the biological anchors paper [...] the point is that what happened here is not so trivial or boring that its clear that an ASI would not have any interest in it.
I agree that a lot of stuff has happened. I agree that accurately simulating the Earth (or even just the biological organisms on Earth) is not trivial. What I don't see (you making an actual argument for) is why all those neural (or other) computations would be interesting to an ASI. [1]
I'm sure people have written more extensively about this, about an ASI freezing some selection of the human population for research purposes or whatever.
Right. That sounds like a worse-than-death scenario. I agree those are entirely plausible, albeit maybe not the most likely outcomes. I'd expect those to be caused by the AI ending up with some kind of human-related goals (due to being trained with objectives like e.g. "learn to predict human-generated text" or "maximize signals of approval from humans"), rather than by the ASI spontaneously developing a specific interest in the history of how natural selection developed protein-based organic machines on one particular planet.
I just find the idea that the ASI will want my atoms for something trivial, when [...]
As mentioned above, I'd agree that there's some chance that an Earth-originating ASI would end up with a goal of "farming" (simulated) humans for something (e.g. signals of approval), but I think such goals are unlikely a priori. Why would an ASI be motivated by "a grand exploration of the extremes of thermodynamics" (whatever that even means)? (Sounds like a waste of energy, if your goal is to (e.g.) maximize the number of molecular squiggles in existence.) Are you perhaps typical-minding/projecting your own (laudable) human wonder/curiosity onto a hypothetical machine intelligence?
Analogy: If you put a few kilograms of fluid in a box, heat it up, and observe it for a few hours, the particles will bop around in really complicated ways. Simulating all those particle interactions would take a huge amount of computation, it would be highly non-trivial. And yet, water buckets are not particularly exciting or interesting. Complexity does not imply "interestingness". ↩︎
"Whatever happened here is a datapoint about matter and energy doing their usual thing over a long period of time."
Not all thermodynamic systems are created equal. I know enough about information theory to know that making bold claims about what is interesting and meaningful is unwise. But I also know it is not certain that there is no objective difference between a photon wandering through a vacuum and a butterfly.
Here is one framework for understanding complexity that applies equally well for stars, planets, plants, animals, humans and AIs. It is possible I am typical-minding, but it is also possible that the universe cares about complexity in some meaningful way. Maybe it helps increase the rate of entropy relaxation. I don't know.
spontaneously developing a specific interest in the history of how natural selection developed protein-based organic machines on one particular planet
not 'one particular planet' but 'at all'.
I find it plausible that there is some sense in which the universe is interested in the evolution of complex nanomachines. I find it likely that an evolved being would be interested in the same. I find very likely that an evolved being would be particularly interested in the evolutionary process by which it came into being.
Whether this leads to s-risk or not is another question, but I think your implication that all thermodynamic systems are in some sense equally interesting is just a piece of performative cynicism and not based on anything. Yes this is apparently what matter and energy will do given enough time. Maybe the future evolution of these atoms is all predetermined. But the idea of things being interesting or uninteresting is baked into the idea of having preferences at all, so if you are going to use that vocabulary to talk about an ASI you must already be assuming that it will not see all thermodynamic systems as equal.
I feel like this conversation might be interesting to continue, if I had more bandwidth, but I don't. In any case, thanks for the linked article, looks interesting based on the abstract.
Haha, totally agree- I'm very much at the limit of what I can contribute.
In an 'Understanding Entropy' seminar series I took part in a long time ago we discussed measures of complexity and such things. Nothing was clear then or is now, but the thermodynamic arrow of time plus the second law of thermodynamics plus something something complexity plus the fermi observation seems to leave a lot of potential room for this planet is special even from a totally misanthropic frame.
Enjoy the article!
Total mass of the asteroid belt is <0.1% the mass of Earth. Total mass of all rocky planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and any other Oort cloud objects is about 3 Earth masses. Not harvesting Earth first if you can and you're right here would be very odd, until and unless you can build everything you need out of the sun or the gas giants.
I can imagine situation when ASI first disassemble Moon and then Earth. I can't imagine scenarios
- Where ASI doesn't disassemble Earth at all
- Where ASI doesn't unleash some nanoplagues to destroy human civilization before starting disassemble Moon, just in case.
I agree that we are unlikely to pose any serious threat to an ASI. My disagreement with you comes when one asks why we don't pose any serious threat. We pose no threat, not because we are easy to control, but because we are easy to eliminate. Imagine you are sitting next to a small campfire, sparking profusely in a very dry forest. You have a firehose in your lap. Is the fire a threat? Not really. You can douse it at any time. Does that mean it couldn't in theory burn down the forest? No. After all, it is still fire. But you're not worried because you control all the variables. An AI in this situation might very well decide to douse the fire instead of tending it.
To bring it back to your original metaphor: For a sloth to pose a threat to the US military at all, it would have to understand that the military exists, and what it would mean to 'defeat' the US military. The sloth does not have that baseline understanding. The sloth is not a campfire. It is a pile of wood. Humans have that understanding. Humans are a campfire.
Now maybe the ASI ascends to some ethereal realm in which humans couldn't harm it, even if given completely free reign for a million years. This would be like a campfire in a steel forest, where even if the flames leave the stone ring, they can spread no further. Maybe the ASI will construct a steel forest, or maybe not. We have no way of knowing.
An ASI could use 1% of its resources to manage the nuisance humans and 'tend the fire', or it could use 0.1% of its resources to manage the nuisance humans by 'dousing' them. Or it could incidentally replace all the trees with steel, and somehow value s'mores enough that it doesn't replace the campfire with a steel furnace. This is... not impossible? But I'm not counting on it.
Sorry for the ten thousand edits. I wanted the metaphor to be as strong as I could make it.
I'm at like 40% doom, then conditional on doom like 50/50 on nearly all (>99%) humans killed within a year (I'm talking about information death here, freezing brains and reviving later doesn't count as death; if not revived ever, then it's death), then conditioned on nearly all humans killed I'm at maybe 75% on literally all humans killed within a year.
So, overall I'm at 15% on literally all humans dead?
Numbers aren't in reflective equilibrium. I find the arguments for the AI killing nearly everyone not that compelling.
I also find the atoms argument very uncompelling. There is so much space and solar energy in the asteroid belt, I'm sure there is a good chance that the ASI will be chill.
However, I think Yudkowsky is shouting so loud because even if that chance of asi apocalypse is only 5%, that is 5% multiplied by all possible human goodness, which is a big deal to our species in expectation.
Personally I think the totality of the biological ecosystems on earth (including humans) will still be interesting to an ASI, so I'd hope they'd let it tick on as a museum piece.
There is so much space and solar energy in the asteroid belt, I’m sure there is a good chance that the ASI will be chill.
You could say the same thing about humanity. But here we are, maximizing our usage of Earth's resources before we move out into the solar system.
But it's hard for us. It would be very easy for an ASI. Even with no advancement in tech, the ASI can ride on the starlinks into space.
We are stuck here amongst the biology for very obvious reasons.
The question isn't whether it would be easier for superintelligent AI to go to space than it would be for humans. Of course it would be! Everything will be easier for a superintelligent AI.
The question is whether a superintelligent AI would prioritize going to space immediately, leaving Earth as an "untouched wilderness", where humans are free to thrive. Or, will the superintelligent AI work on fully exploiting the resources it has at hand, here on earth, before choosing to go to space? I think the latter is far more likely. Superintelligence can't beat physics. No matter what, it will always be easier to harvest closer resources than it will be to harvest resources that are farther away. The closest resources are on earth. So why should the superintelligent AI go to space, when, at least in the immediate term, it has everything it needs to grow right here?
whether a superintelligent AI would prioritize going to space immediately
Priorities need a resource that gets allocated to one thing and not another thing. But going to space doesn't imply/motivate leaving Earth, doing both doesn't diminish either.
My argument is that, like humanity, a superintelligent AI will initially find it easier to extract resources from Earth than it will from space based sources. By the time earth's resources are sufficiently depleted that this is no longer the case, there will be far too little remaining for humanity to survive on.
Do you pick up every penny that you pass in the street?
The amount of energy and resources on Earth would be a rounding error in an ASI's calculations. And it would be a rounding error that happens to be incredibly complex and possibly unique!
Maybe a more appropriate question is, do you pick every flower that you pass in the park? What if it was the only one?
The amount of energy and resources on Earth would be a rounding error in an ASI’s calculations.
Once again: this argument applies to humanity too. Everyone acknowledges that the asteroid belt holds far more resources than Earth. But here we are, building strip mines in Australia rather than hauling asteroids in from the belt.
Your counterargument is that the AI will find it much easier to go to space, not being constrained by human biology. Fine. But won't the AI also find it much easier to build strip mines? Or harvest resources from the oceans? Or pave over vast tracts of land for use as solar farms? You haven't answered why going to space will be cheaper for the AI than staying on earth. All you've proven is that going to space will be cheaper for the AI than it will be for humans, which is a claim that I'm not contesting.
From your other reply
I just find the idea that the ASI will want my atoms for something trivial, when there are so many other atoms in the universe that are not part of a grand exploration of the extremes of thermodynamics, unconvincing.
The problem isn't that the AI will want the atoms that comprise your body, specifically. That's trivially false. It makes as much sense as the scene in The Matrix where Morpheus explained to Neo that the Matrix was using humans as living energy sources.
What is less trivially false is that the AI will alter the biosphere in ways that make it impossible (or merely very difficult) for humans to live, just as humans have altered the biosphere in ways that have made it impossible (or merely very difficult) for many other species to live. The AI will not intend to alter the biosphere. The biosphere alteration will be a side-effect of whatever the AI's goals are. But the alteration will take place, regardless.
Put more pithily: tell me why I should expect a superintelligent AI to be an environmentalist.
Just to preserve information. It's not every day that you come across a thermodynamic system that has been evolving so far from equilibrium for so long. There is information here.
In general, I feel like a lot of people in discussion about ASI seem to enjoy fantasizing about science fiction apocalypses of various kinds. Personally I'm not so interested in exercises in fancy, rather looking at ways physical laws might imply that 'strong orthogonality' is unlikely to obtain in reality.
Why should the AI prioritize preserving information over whatever other goal that it's been programmed to accomplish?
The information could be instrumentally useful for any of the following Basic AI Drives:
- Efficiency: making use of the already-performed thermodynamic 'calculation' of evolution (and storage of that calculation-- the biosphere conveniently preserves this information for free)
- Acquisition: 'information' will doubtlessly be one of the things an AI wants to acquire
- Creativity: the biosphere has lots of ways of doing things
- Cognitive enhancement: understanding thermodynamics on an intimate level will help any kind of self-enhancement
- Technological perfection: same story. You want to understand thermodynamics.
At every time step, the AI will be trading off these drives against the value of producing more or doing more of whatever it was programmed to do. What happens when the AI decides that it's learned enough from the biosphere and that the costs of preserving a biosphere for humans no longer outweigh the potential benefit that it earns from learning about biology, evolution and thermodynamics?
We humans make these trade-offs all the time, often unconsciously, as we weigh whether to bulldoze a forest, or build a dam, or dig a mine. A superintelligent AI will perhaps be more intentional in its calculations, but that's still no guarantee that the result of the calculation will swing in humanity's favor. We could, in theory, program the AI to preserve earth as a sanctuary. But, in my view, that's functionally equivalent to solving alignment.
Your argument appears to be that an unaligned AI will, spontaneously, choose to, at the very least, preserve Earth as a sanctuary for humans into perpetuity. I still don't see why it should do that.
That isn't my argument, my argument is just that the general tone seems too defeatist.
The question asker was under the impression that the probabilities were %99.X percent against anything okay. My only argument was that this is wrong, and there are good reasons that this is wrong.
Where the p(doom) lies between 99 and 1 percent is left as an exercise for posterity. I'm not totally unhinged in my optimism, I just think the tone of certain doom is poorly founded and there are good reasons to have some measure of hope.
Not just 'i dunno, maybe it will be fine' but real reasons why it could conceivably be fine. Again, the probabilities are up for debate, I only wanted to present some concrete reasons.
A related factor is curiosity. As I understand, reinforcement learning agents perform much better if gifted with curiosity (or if developed it by themselves). Seeking novel information is extremely helpful for most goals (but could lead to "TV addiction").
I find it plausible that ASI will be curious, and that both humanity and the biosphere, which are the results of billions of years of an enormous computation, will stimulate ASI's curiosity.
But its curiosity may not last for centuries, or even years. Additionally, the curiosity may involve some dissection of living humans, or worse.
Note that an AI or civilization of many ASIs could harvest the overwhelming majority of all accessible and suitable material on the planet and yet keep all humans alive if they chose to. It's not an expensive thing to do. Humans are really cheap and live skimming off the very surface of the earth. Most of our raw material shortages are self inflicted, we don't recycle CO2 back to hydrocarbons and we don't recycle our trash at an elemental level.
The reason they might kill all humans would be either from a moloch scenario or one where it was efficient to do so to remove humans as an obstacle.
even if that chance of asi apocalypse is only 5%, that is 5% multiplied by all possible human goodness, which is a big deal to our species in expectation.
The problem is that if you really believe (because EY and others are shouting it from the rooftops) that there is a ~!00% chance we're all gonna die shortly, you are not going to be motivated to plan for the 50/50 or 10/90 scenario. Once you acknowledge that you can't really make a confident prediction on this matter, it is illogical to only plan for the minimal and maximal cases (we all die/everything is great). Those outcomes need no planning, so spending energy focusing on them is not optimal.
Sans hard data, as a Bayesian, shouldn't one start with a balanced set of priors over all the possible outcomes, then focus on the ones you may be able to influence?
I'm not sure what you think I believe, but yeah I think we should be looking at scenarios in between the extremes.
I was giving reasons why I maintain some optimism, and maintaining optimism while reading Yudkowsky leaves me in the middle, where actions can be taken.