Wiki Contributions

Comments

Good proposal! I agree that this is a great opportunity to try out some ideas in this space.

Another proposal for the metric: 

The regrantor will judge in 5 years whether they are happy that they funded this project. This has a simple binary resolution criterium and aligns the incentives of the market nicely with the regrantor.

I agree that "Moral Realism AI" was a bit of a misnomer and I've changed it to "Convergent Morality AI".

Your scenario seems highly specific. Could you try to rephrase it in about three sentences, as in the other scenarios? 

I'm a bit wary about adding a lot of future scenarios that are outside of our reality and want the scenarios to focus on the future of our universe. However, I do think there is space for a scenario where our reality ends as it has achieved its goals (as in your scenario, I think?).

Thanks! I think your tag of @avturchin didn't work, so just pinging them here to see if they think I missed important and probable scenarios.

Taking the Doomsday argument seriously, the "Futures without AGI because we go extinct in another way" and the "Futures with AGI in which we die" seem most probable. In futures with conscious AGI agents, it will depend a lot on how experience gets sampled (e.g. one agent vs many).

Yes, good one! I've added the following:

Powergrab with AI: OpenAI, Deepmind or another small group of people invent AGI and align it to their interests. In a short amount of time, they become all-powerful and rule over the world. 

I've disregarded the "wipe out everyone else" part, as I think that's unlikely enough for people who are capable of building an AGI.

Thanks, good suggestions! I've added the following:

Pious AI: Humanity builds AGI and adopts one of the major religions. Vast amounts of superintelligent cognition is devoted to philosophy, theology, and prayer. AGI proclaims itself to be some kind of Messiah, or merely God's most loyal and capable servant on Earth and beyond.

I think Transcendant AI is close enough to Far far away AI, where in this case far far away means another plane of physics. Similarly, I think your Matrix AI scenario is captured in:

Theoretical Impossibility: For some reason or another (Souls? Consciousness? Quantum something?), it turns out to be theoretically impossible to build AGI. Humanity keeps making progress on other fronts, but just never invents AGI.

where the weird reason in this case is that we live in the matrix.


 

I almost never consider character.ai, yet total time spent there is similar to Bing or ChatGPT. People really love the product, that visit duration is off the charts. Whereas this is total failure for Bard if they can’t step up their game.


Wow, wasn't aware they are this big. And they supposedly train their own models. Does anyone know if the founders have a stance on AI X-risk?

Interesting! Does it ask for a different confidence interval every time I see the card? Or will it always ask for the 90% confidence interval I see the example card?

This strategy has never worked for me, but I can see it working for other people. If you want to try this though, it is important to make it clear to yourself which procedure you're following.

I believe that for my mechanism, it is very important to always follow up on the dice. If there is a dice outcome that would disappoint you, just don't put it on the list!

I can see this being a problem. However, I see myself as someone with very low willpower and this is still not a problem for me. I think this is because of two reasons:

  1. I never put an option on the list that I know I would/could not execute.
  2. I regard the dice outcome as somewhat holy. I would always pay out a bet I lost to a friend. Partly, because it's just the right thing to do and partly because I know that otherwise, the whole mechanism of betting is worthless from that moment on. I guess that all my parts are happy enough with this system that none of them want to break it by not executing the action.

True. It does however resolve internal conflicts between multiple parts of yourself. Often when I have an internal conflict about something (let's say going to the gym vs going to a bar) the default action is inaction or think about this for an hour until I don't have enough time to do any of them.

I believe this is because both actions are unacceptable for the other part, which doesn't feel heard.

However, both parts can agree to a 66% chance of going to the gym, and 33% of going to the bar, and the die decision is ultimate.

Load More