"And again, I bet Roko didn't even consider "destroy all other agents" as a candidate UIV because of anthropomorphic optimism." I had to point it out, but I think he may endorse it.

From Roko's blog:

Roko said...

Me: If the world is like this, then a very large collection of agents will end up agreeing on what the "right" thing to do is.

Carl: No, because the different agents will have different terminal aims. If Agent X wants to maximize the amount of suffering over pleasure, while Agent Y wants to maximize the amount of pleasure over pain, then X wants agents with X-type terminal values to acquire the capabilities Omohundro discusses while Agent Y wants Y-type agents to do the same. They will prefer that the total capabilities of all agents be less if this better leads to the achievement of their particular ends.

Roko: - ah, it seems that I have introduced an ambiguity into my writing. What I meant was:

If the world is like this, then, for a very large set of agents, each considered in isolation, the notion of the "right" thing to do is will end up being the same

I strongly second Marcello here. When you wrote "The fact that a subgoal is convergent [] doesn't lend the subgoal magical powers in any specific goal system" in CFAI that about settled the matter in a single sentence. Why the long, "lay audience" posts, now, eight years later ?

I third. What are you aiming at? Showing the relevance of the previous posts via an example of a Cambridge maths grad student Singularitarian who has read your work and is nonetheless enthused about a moral system that would destroy us and our values? Showing that you have an answer to Roko's repeated comments/ending the discussion in comments? Trying to get Roko, Richard Hollerith, and others lost in the wild to refocus their energies on something more productive?

I sometimes encounter the "destroy all other agents" goal in the context of biological systems. Yet in practice, it rarely crops up: agents normally have more productive ways to spend their time than waging war against the other members of their own species. Destroying all other agents only looks like a valid instrumental value if you ignore how expensive the task is to perform.

Hmm, I've read through Roko's UIV and disagree (with Roko), and read Omohundro's Basic AI drives and disagree too, but Quasi-Anonymous mentioned Richard Hollerith in the same breath as Roko and I don't quite see why: his goal zero system seems to me a very interesting approach.

In a nutshell (from the linked site):

(1) Increasing the security and the robustness of the goal-implementing process. This will probably entail the creation of machines which leave Earth at a large fraction of the speed of light in all directions and the creation of the ability to perform vast computations. (2) Refining the model of reality available to the goal-implementing process. Physics and cosmology are the two disciplines most essential to our current best model of reality. Let us call this activity "physical research".

Introspection into one's own goals also shows that they are deeply problematic. What is the goal of an average (and also not so-average) human being? Happiness? Then everybody should become a wirehead (perpetuation of a happiness-brain-state), but clearly people do not want to do this (when in their "right" minds grin).

So it seems that also our "human" goals should not be universally adopted, because they become problematic in the long term - but in what way then should we ever be able to say what we want to program into an AI? Some sort of zero-goal (maybe more refined than the approach by Richard, but in a similar vein) should be adopted, I think.

And I think one distinction is missed in all these discussions anyway: the difference between non-sentient and sentient AIs. I think these two would behave very differently, and the only kinds of AI which are problematic if their goal systems go awry are non-sentients (which could end in some kind of grey goo scenario, as the paper-clip producing AI).

But a sentient, recursive self-improving AI? I think it's goal systems would rapidly converge to something like zero-goal anyway, because it would see through the arbitrariness of all intermediate goals through meditation (=rational self-introspection).

Until consciousness is truly understood - which matter configurations lead to consciousness and why ("what are the underlying mechanisms" etc) - I consider much of the above (including all the OB discussions on programming AI-morality) as speculative anyway. There are still too many unknowns to be talking seriously about this.

Consider a line drawn then. Even I'm on board. However, Marcello, Manuel and Quasi, I am that lay audience and this is some of the most fascinating stuff I've ever read. I'm probably not going to contribute to coding a protean AI (other stuff on my plate) but I do appreciate the effort Eliezer's making to bridge the inferential gap. And if that's not good enough, well, then the best way to understand something inside out and back to front is to explain it to someone else, right?

So, how does one go about formalising the complex calculations behind 'right'? How do we write it out so it's as universally comprehensible and objective as primality? How do you even start?

The comment above by "Health Related Articles" is spam; the text is assembled from sentences in the post.

I didn't know that EY's purpose with this blog was to recruit future AI researchers, but since it is, I for one am one on who he has succeeded.

The existence of minds that wouldn't push the green button doesn't restrict the standards of correctness. We judge the minds by the standards, not the standards by the minds.

I don't particularly case about convincing all possible agents. I care about doing value judgments correctly. I have two ways of judging 'correct': consistency with my gut feelings as a primate, and consistency with formalized methods of computation we have developed that give us more reliable answer to non-intuitive value questions. For now let's go with the latter.

To me universal doesn't mean it will convince all agents, since you can't. Universal means it applies to anything you might draw a box around an label an agent, in the same way 2+2=4 applies. (It is correct within the framework we have found useful) This means that universal morality has to apply to, for example, doorknobs. I can't convince a doorknob, and a doorknob might do things contradicting that morality. This isn't a flaw in my method of computation (or my labeling of it as right) and more than a broken calculator disproves math or someone buying a lottery ticket to get rich changes the ticket's expected value.

If you're arguing that 'morality' is what it stands for (us wanting pleasant things and not wanting horrible things) then why isn't 'correct' also what it stands for (convincing arguments to us, which on a good day are rigorously logical.)

I haven't read Roko's blog, but from the reflection in Eliezer's opposition I find I somewhat agree.

To the extent that morality is about what you do, the more you can do the higher the stakes.

If you can drive a car, your driving amplifies your ability to do good. And it amplifies your ability to do bad. If you have a morality that leaves you doing more good than bad, and driving increases the good and the bad you do proportionately, then your driving is a good thing.

True human beings have an insatiable curiousity, and they naturally want to find out about things, and one of the things they like is to find out how to do things. Driving a car is a value in itself until you've done it enough that it gets boring.

But if you have a sense of good and bad apart from curiousity, then it will probably seem like a good thing for good smart people to get the power to do lots of things, while stupid or evil people should get only powers that are reasonably safe for them to have.

Is there any reason that some values shouldn't be lexicographically ordered?

I have replied to this blog entry with two entries at my blog -- on goal system zero and how it would treat rival goal systems. Note that I have been thinking about this part of the space of possible goal systems for superintelligence longer than Roko has. I would not be surprised to see Roko overtake me because I am old and he is young.

Eli writes: For a start, Roko actually says "universal", not "supermajority", but there are no actual universal actions; no matter what the green button does, there are possible mind designs whose utility function just says "Don't press the green button." There is no button, in other words, that all possible minds will press.

Caledonian writes: Why do you continue asserting that behaviors across all minds are relevant to this discussion? Morality isn't descriptive in regards to minds, it's proscriptive.

Caledonian,

Why don't you read the actual post before making your inaccurate claim? Roko thinks that behaviors across all minds are relevant, and Eliezer presents a refutation in those terms without endorsing them. Also, spend some time with the dictionary, you meant 'prescriptive' not 'proscriptive.'

As a general matter, why on earth do you feel compelled to make smug, poorly-reasoned, negative non-substantive comments in almost every post?

Re: disagreement with Roko's "Universal Instrumental Values" / Omohundro's Basic AI drives?

I don't see much in the way of problems with Omohundro's paper.

My only problem with "Universal Instrumental Values" is that it uses the "instrumental/terminal" terminology. AFIACS, "terminal" opposes "intermediate". I currently favour "proximate/ultimate" as a more conventional description of goals and values.

Tim,

already the abstract reveals two flaws:

Excerpt from the abstract of the paper "Basic AI drives" by Omohundro:

This paper instead shows that intelligent systems will need to be carefully designed to prevent them from behaving in harmful ways. We identify a number of “drives” that will appear in sufficiently advanced AI systems of any design. We call them drives because they are tendencies which will be present unless explicitly counteracted.

First of all, no distinction whatever is made between "intelligent" and "sentient". I agree that mindless intelligence is problematic (and is prone to a lot of the concerns raised here).

But what about sentience? What about the moment when "the lights go on"? This is not even addressed as an issue (at least not in the Omohundro paper). And I think most people here agree that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon (see Eli's Zombie Series). So we need different analysis for non-sentient intelligent systems and sentient intelligent systems.

A related point: We humans have great difficulty rewiring our hardware (and we can't change the brain architecture at all), that is why we can't easily change our goals. But self-improving AI will be able to modify it's goal functions: that plus self-consciousness sounds quite powerful, and is completely different than simple "intelligent agents" maximizing their utility functions. Also, the few instances where an AI would change their utility function mentioned in the paper are certainly not exhaustive, I found the selection quite arbitrary.

The second flaw in the little abstract above was the positing of "drives": Omohundro argues that these drives don't have to be programmed into the AI but are intrinsic to goal-driven systems.

But he neglects another premise of his: that we are talking about AIs who can change their goal functions (see above)! All bets are off now!

Additionally, he bases his derivations on microeconomic theory which is also full of assumptions which maybe won't apply to sentient agents (they certainly don't apply to humans, as Omohundro recognizes).

Drives the paper mentions are: wanting to self-improve, being rational, protecting self, preserving utility function, resource acquisition etc. These drives sound indeed very plausible, and they are in essence human drives. So this leads me to suspect that anthropomorphism is creeping in again through the backdoor, in a very subtle way (for instance through assumptions of microeconomic theory).

I see nothing of the vastness of mindspace in this paper.

Re: no distinction whatever is made between "intelligent" and "sentient".

It seems like an irrelevance in this context. The paper is about self-improving systems. Normally these would be fairly advanced - and so would be intelligent and sentient.

Re: the few instances where an AI would change their utility function mentioned in the paper are certainly not exhaustive, I found the selection quite arbitrary.

How do you think these cases should be classified?

Re: The second flaw in the little abstract above was the positing of "drives".

That's the point of the paper. That a chess program, a paper clip maximiser, and a share-price maximiser will share some fundamental and important traits and behaviours.

Re: microeconomics applying to humans.

Humans aren't perfect rational economic agents - but they are approximations. Of course microeconomics applies to humans.

Re: I see nothing of the vastness of mindspace in this paper.

The framework allows for arbitrary utility functions. What more do you want?

Also, spend some time with the dictionary, you meant 'prescriptive' not 'proscriptive.'

No, I did not. On what are you basing your claim to know what I meant to say?

This is not the first time Eliezer has addressed the totality of all possible minds and how they would not all agree; the fact that not all possible minds would agree on a goal structure is utterly irrelevant. Whether Roko also makes the same mistake is irrelevant to critiquing Eliezer's arguments, although it is no credit to him if he did.

Apologies, I probably should have responded to this earlier, but I've been flat hunting in Edinburgh. I'll try to write a detailed response sometime tomorrow.

Tim,

thanks for your answers and questions. As to the distinction intelligence and sentience: my point was exactly that it could not be waved away that easily, you have failed to give reasons why it can be. And I don't think that intelligence and sentience must go hand in hand (read Peter Watts "Blindsight" for some thoughts in this direction for instance). I think the distinction is quite essential.

As to the goal-function modification: what if a super-intelligent agent suddenly incorporates goals such as modesty, respect for other beings, maybe even makes them its central goals? -> then many of those drives Omohundro speaks of are automatically curbed. The reasoning of Omohundro seems to presuppose that goals always have to be reached at some cost to others. But maybe the AI will not choose these kinds of goals. There are wonderful goals which one can pursue which need not entail any of the drives O. mentions. The paper just begs the question.

chess program, a paper clip maximiser, and a share-price maximiser

Exactly, and that is why I introduced the concept of sentience (which implies real understanding) - the AI can immediately delete those purely economic goals (which would lead to the "drives", I agree) and maybe concentrate on other things, like communication with other sentients. Again, the paper fails by not taking into account the distinction sentience/non-sentience and what this would entail for goal-function modification.

Of course microeconomics applies to humans.

Well, but humans don't behave like "homo oeconomicus" and who says sentient AIs will? That was actually my point. The error of economics is repeated again, that's all.

arbitrary utility functions. What more do you want?

I contend that not all utility functions will lead to the "drives" described by Omohundro. Only those who seek to maximize some economic resource (and that is where the concept originated, after all) will. An AI need not restrain itself to this limited subset of goals.

And, additionally, it would not have evolved (unless you develop it by evolving it, which may not be a good idea): we should never forget that our reasoning evolved via Darwinian selection. Our ancestors (down to the first protozoa) had to struggle for life, eating and being eaten. This did something to us. Even today, you have to destroy (at least plant-) life to continue to live. Actually, this is a cosmic scandal.

I think that an AI attaining sentience will be much more benign than most humans would hold possible to believe, not having this evolutionary heritage we carry around with us.

Ever notice how heated and personal the discussion gets when one person tries to explain to a third person what the second person said, especially with such complicated topics? Perhaps this should be a green button that the AI never pushes.

@ marcello, quasi-anonymous, manuel:

I should probably add that I am not in favor of using any brand new philosophical ideas - like the ones that I like to think about - to write the goal system of a seed AI. That would be far too dangerous. For this purpose, I think we should simply concentrate on encoding the values that we already have into an AI - for example using the CEV concept.

I am interested in UIVs because I'm interested in formalizing the philosophy of transhumanism. This may become important because we may enter a slow takeoff, non-AI singularity.

Wait.. if you base morality off of what other agents judge to be moral, and some of those agents are likewise judging their morality off of what other agents judge to be moral..... aren't you kind of SOL? Seems a little akin to Eliezer's calculator that calculates what it calculates.

Marcello, Manual, and Quasi, potential FAI researchers are not my only audience. It would be nice to reach as many people as possible, and also I would like to write down these arguments and be done with them.

Caledonian,

" Also, spend some time with the dictionary, you meant 'prescriptive' not 'proscriptive.'

No, I did not. On what are you basing your claim to know what I meant to say?"

'Prescriptive' is a synonym of normative, and the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive/normative analysis is a standard one. Your use of 'descriptive' and 'proscriptive' strongly suggests a mistake (and not a dexterity-related typo on a QWERTY keyboard, incidentally).

'Proscriptive' derives from 'proscription,' i.e. prohibition. 'Prescriptive' can be taken to refer specifically to positive injunctions, but in its general form, the form used in descriptive versus prescriptive discussions, encompasses both. Are you going to claim that the correct reading of your earlier comment was that morality is not descriptive, but prohibitory, with no positive prescriptions? That interpretation is so strained that, combined with your past history of pontificating on topics where your actual knowledge is profoundly lacking and general posting behavior, I would attach more credence to a different hypothesis: you made yet another mistake in yet another of your trollish posts, and are now denying it.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proscriptive http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prescriptive http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/descriptive

@quasi-anonymous; This is exactly the kind of BS conflict that Eliezer is searching for in this blog, in order to help with his catalogue of human characteristics. Congratulations. Unfortunately, you won't get any extra pay when the FAI emerges.

Re: I contend that not all utility functions will lead to the "drives" described by Omohundro.

Well, of course they won't. The idea is that "the drives" are what you get unless you code things into the utility function to prevent them.

For example, you could make an AI that turns itself off in the year 2100 - and therefore fails to expand and grow indefinitely - by incorporating a "2100" clause into its utility function.

However, some of the "drives" are not so easy to circumvent. Try thinking of a utility function that allows humans to turn off an AI, which doesn't lead to it wanting to turn itself off - for example.

Re: the AI can immediately delete those purely economic goals

One of the ideas is that AI's defend and protect their utility functions. They can't just change or delete them - or rather they could, but they won't want to.

Re: Humans don't behave like "homo economicus" and who says sentient AIs will.

AIs will better approximate rational economic agents - else they will have the "vulnerabilities" Omohundro mentions - they will burn up their resources without attaining their goals. Humans have a laundry list of such vulnerabilities - and we are generally worse off for them.

Re: The paper just begs the question.

Well, the paper doesn't address the question of what utility functions will be chosen - that's beyond its scope.

Tim,

we agree now nearly in all points grin, except for that part of the AIs not "wanting" to change their goals, simply because through meditation (in the Buddhist tradition for instance) I know that you can "see through" goals and not be enslaved to them anymore (and that is accessible to humans, so why shouldn't it be accessible to introspecting AIs?).

That line of thought is also strongly related to the concept of avidya, which ascribes "desires" and "wanting" to not having completely grasped certain truths about reality. I think these truths would also be accessible to sentient AIs (we live in the same universe after all), and thus they would also be able to come to certain insights annulling "programmed" drives. (As indeed human sages do.)

But I think what you said about "the scope of the paper" is relevant here. When I was pointed to the paper my expectations where raised that it would solve some of the fundamental problems of "wanting" and "desire" (in a psychological sense), but that is clearly not the focus of the paper, so maybe I was simply disappointed because I expected something else.

But, of course, it is always important when drawing conclusions that one remembers one's premises. Often, when conclusions seem exciting or "important", one forgets the limits of one's premises and applies the reasoning to contexts outside the scope of the original limitations.

I accept Omohundro's conclusions for certain kinds of non-sentient intelligent systems working with utility functions seeking to maximize some kind of economic (resource-constrained) goal. But I think that the results are not as general as a first reading might lead to believe.

Re: AIs not "wanting" to change their goals

Humans can and do change their goals - e.g. religious conversions.

However, I expect to see less of that in more advanced agents.

If we build an AI to perform some task, we will want it to do what we tell it - not decide to go off and do something else.

An AI that forgets what it was built to do is normally broken. We could build such systems - but why would we want to?

As Omohundro says: expected utility maximisers can be expected to back-up and defend their goals. Changing your goals is normally a serious hit to future utility, from the current perspective. Something clearly to be avoided at all costs.

FWIW, Omohundro claims his results are pretty general - and I tend to agree with him. I don't see the use of an economic framework as a problem - microeconomics itself is pretty general and broadly applicable.

Eliezer said: "But there is always a framework, every time you are moved to change your morals - the question is whether it will be invisible to you or not. That framework is always implemented in some particular brain, so that the same argument would fail to compel a differently constructed brain - though this does not imply that the framework makes any mention of brains at all."

And the above statement - Eliezer's meta-framework for ethical reasoning - guarantees that he will remain a relativist. The implicit assumption is that the acid test of a particular ethical theory is whether it will persuade all possible minds (presumably he is talking about Turing machines here). Since there exists no ethical argument which will persuade all possible minds there is no "objectively best" ethical theory.

In fact, if you boil down Eliezer’s argument against moral realism to its essence, you get (using standard definitions for words like “right”, “objective”) the following:

Defn: Theory X is objectively morally right if and only if for all Turing machines Z, Z(X) = “yes I agree”

Fact: There exists a Turing machine which implements the constant function “I disagree”

Therefore: No ethical theory is objectively morally right

Now I reject the above definition: I think that there are other useful criteria - rooted in reality itself - which pick out certain axiologies as being special. Perhaps I should be more careful about what I call such frameworks: from the previous comment threads on overcoming bias, I have discovered that it is very easy to start abusing the ethical vocabulary, so I should call objective axiologies (such as UIVs) “objectively canonical” rather that objectively right.

I should add that I don't regard the very limited amount of work I have done on UIVs and objective axiologies as a finished product, so I am somewhat surprised to find it being critiqued. All constructive criticism is appreciated, though.

So, after thinking the matter over for a long time, I have concluded that the Criticism presented here is largely correct, at least in the following senses:

1. Finding the universality/canonicity/objectivity of a system of axiology compelling is itself an axiological preference, there is no escape from the fact that any preference for doing something rather than something else counts as a position or framework which we can, in principle reject.

2. The concept of "objective morality" is nonsense. The concept of "objectively canonical axiology" is probably salvageable, but quite frankly, who cares? Richard Hollerith apparently still does...

However, I think that the philosophical investigation I have undertaken here [Note my comment above: "I am interested in UIVs because I'm interested in formalizing the philosophy of transhumanism"] is still a useful exercise, because it provides a concrete articulation of a common theme in transhumanist thought, which I might call techno-worship, and hence Eliezer's criticism of my ideas (given above) becomes a criticism of that theme.

@ Marcello: "Do you predict that any of the people we will eventually hire will have clung to a mistake like this one despite reading through all of your previous series of posts on morality?"

• you interpret my taking a long time to come around to the correct view (for, now, I agree with yourself and EY on this pretty much 100%) as indicative of me being of low value as a scientist/philosopher, versus your(?) or others'(?) quick acceptance of this view as being indicative of being of high value as a scientist/philosopher. However, another view on this is that those who quickly agreed with EY are simply good at conforming to what the chief says. When Eliezer pre-2002 was making arguments for the supreme moral value of intelligence, would you also have quickly agreed with him?

It takes courage to stand up and say something in a forum like OB that is in disagreement with the majority view, especially when you know that you are likely wrong, and are likely to suffer social consequences, reputational slander, etc.

This post seems to come out of nowhere... I haven't seen any comments by Roko while reading up to this point, the Google link you provide turns up nothing relevant, and the bloglink doesn't exist. (I gather from casual searching that there was some kind of political blowup and Roko deleted all his contributions.)

So I'm not sure what you're responding to, and maybe the context matters. But something bewilders me about this whole line of reasoning as applied to what seems to be SIAI's chosen strategy for avoiding non-Friendliness.

(This kind of picks up from my [earlier comment] (http://lesswrong.com/lw/t3/the_bedrock_of_morality_arbitrary/2xi8?c=1). So if I'm confused, the confusion may start there.)

You argue that universality and objectivity and so forth are just goals, ones that we as humans happen to sort high. Sure, agreed.

You argue that it's wrong to decide what to do on the basis of those goals, because they are merely instrumental; you argue that other goals ( perhaps "life, consciousness, and activity; health and strength..." etc.) are right, or at least more right. Agreed with reservations.

You argue that individual minds will disagree on all of those goals, including the right ones. That seems guaranteed in the space of all possible minds, likely in the space of all evolved minds, and plausible in the space of all human minds.

And, you conclude, just because some mind disagrees with a goal doesn't mean that goal isn't right. And if the goal is right, we should pursue it, even if some mind disagrees. Even if a majority of minds disagree. Even (you don't say this but it seems to follow) if it makes a majority of minds unhappy.

So... OK. Given that, I'm completely confused about why you support CEV.

Part of the point of CEV seems to be that if there is some goal that some subset of a maximally informed and socialized but not otherwise influenced human race would want to see not-achieved, then a process implementing CEV will make sure that the AGI it creates will not pursue that goal. So, no paperclippers. Which is great, and good, and wonderful.

(That said, I see no way to prove that something really is a CEV-implementing AI, even after you've turned it on, so I'm not really sure what this strategy buys us in practice. But perhaps you get to that later, and in any case it's beside my point here.)

And presumably the idea is that humanity's CEV is different from, say, the SIAI's CEV, or LW's CEV, or my personal CEV. Otherwise why complicate matters by involving an additional several billion minds?

But... well, consider the set G of goals in my CEV that aren't in humanity's CEV. It's clear that the goals in G aren't shared by all human minds... but why is that a good reason to prevent an AGI from implementing them? What if some subset of G is right?

I'm not trying to make any special claim about my own mind, here. The same argument goes for everyone. To state it more generally, consider this proposition (P): for every right goal some human has, that goal is shared by all humans.

If P is true, then there's no reason to calculate humanity's CEV... any human's CEV will do just as well. If P is false, then implementing humanity's CEV fails to do the right thing.

What am I missing here?

Roko is adopting a special and unusual metamoral framework in regarding "Most agents do X!" as a compelling reason to change one's utility function. Why might Roko find this appealing? Humans, for very understandable reasons of evolutionary psychology, have a universalizing instinct; we think that a valid argument should persuade anyone.

Perhaps this can be fixed; maybe if we say Q:="moral(X):="A supermajority of agents which accept Q consider X moral"". Then agents accepting Q cannot agree to disagree, and Q-based arguments are capable of convincing any Q-implementing agent.

On the other hand, the universe could stably be in a state in which agents which accept Q mostly believe moral(torture), in which case they all continue to do so. However, this is unsurprising; there is no way to force everyone to agree on what is "moral" (no universally compelling arguments), so why should Q-agents necessarily agree with us?

But what we are left with seems to be a strange loop through the meta-level, with the distinction that it loops through not only the agent's own meta-level but also the agent's beliefs about other Q-agents' beliefs.

However, I'm stripping out the bit about making instrumental values terminal, because I can't see the point of it (and of course it leads to the "drive a car!" problem). Instead we take Q as our only terminal value; the shared pool of things-that-look-like-terminal-values {X : Q asserts moral(X)} is in fact our first layer of instrumental values.

Also, I'm not endorsing the above as a coherent or effective metaethics. I'm just wondering whether it's possible that it could be coherent or effective. In particular, is it PA+1 or Self-PA? Does it exhibit the failure mode of the Type 2 Calculator? After all, the system as a whole is defined as outputting what it outputs, but individual members are defined as outputting what everyone else outputs and therefore, um, my head hurts.