We’ve been looking for joinable endeavors in AI safety outreach over the past weeks and would like to share our findings with you. Let us know if we missed any and we’ll add them to the list. For comprehensive directories of AI safety communities spanning general interest, technical focus, and...
Epistemic status: Noticing confusion There is little discussion happening on LessWrong with regards to AI governance and outreach. Meanwhile, these efforts could buy us time to figure out technical alignment. And even if we figure out technical alignment, we still have to solve crucial governmental challenges so that totalitarian lock-in...
Awesome work. For anyone reading this: Please try to talk to your local policymakers. As a constituent it is much easier to get a meeting.
Torchbearers (which is a community adjacent to ControlAI) and/or PauseAI are happy to give you advice or coaching!
I have goals that benefit from having hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. So do other people. Money is for steering the world. I can use money to hire other people and get them to do things I want.
How do you stand towards pluralism or democracy? There is some tension there with people having billions of dollars of steering influence but of course there is with taking peoples money away as well. Money could also be used to steer towards a more pluralistic society etc. ...
Anything to read which approximately describes you view there?
Well, they'll probably still exist.
It seems more likely to me that the Malawi people and everyone else will be killed at some point.
Currently the system still has to consider popular opinion to some degree. Killing all the Malavi people would not be efficient right now. When that incentive disappears enough, I would expect everyone else to get eliminated (All of this assumes incentive aligned AI which I wouldn't expect). This goes in the direction the author was mentioning that the reason for moral progress is more about which societal structures are efficient not actual "moral" progress".
If competition between humans persists I would expect the other last humans to disappear as well having to transfer all their power to survive the competition.
We’ve been looking for joinable endeavors in AI safety outreach over the past weeks and would like to share our findings with you. Let us know if we missed any and we’ll add them to the list.
For comprehensive directories of AI safety communities spanning general interest, technical focus, and local chapters, check out https://www.aisafety.com/communities and https://www.aisafety.com/map. If you're uncertain where to start, https://aisafety.quest/ offers personalized guidance.
ControlAI started out as a think tank. Over the past months, they developed a theory of change for how to prevent ASI development (“Direct Institutional Plan”). As a pilot campaign they cold-mailed British MPs and Lords to talk to them about AI risk. So far, they talked to 70 representatives... (read 594 more words →)
I don't think that effective politics in this case requires deception and deception often backfires in unexpected ways.
Gabriel and Connor suggest in their interview that radical honesty - genuinely trusting politicians, advisors and average people to understand your argument and recognizing that they also don't want to die from ASI - can be remarkably effective. The real problem may be that this approach is not attempted enough. I remember this as a slightly less but still positive datapoint https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2sLwt2cSAag74nsdN/speaking-to-congressional-staffers-about-ai-risk .
> If they have good political instincts, they'd probably have no desire to.
I can see that critique. I can also see something in the opposite direction where there is a giant "ugh field" around... (read more)
Epistemic status: Noticing confusion
There is little discussion happening on LessWrong with regards to AI governance and outreach. Meanwhile, these efforts could buy us time to figure out technical alignment. And even if we figure out technical alignment, we still have to solve crucial governmental challenges so that totalitarian lock-in or gradual disempowerment don't become the default outcome of deploying aligned AGI.
Here's three reasons why we think we might want to shift much more resources towards governance and outreach:
The Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), traditionally focused on technical alignment research, has pivoted to broader outreach. They write in their 2024 end of year update:
... (read 356 more words →)Although we continue to support some
This year's Spring ACX Meetup everywhere in Leipzig.
Location: With good wheather we'll meet at the Pavillon in the East corner of Johannapark, and will have an A2 poster with the ACX logo. With bad wheather at Leos Brasserie. – https://plus.codes/9F3J89M8+XQ
Group Link: Telegram group people can join - mail me for the link
Do you like Brownies or something healthier :)?
Contact: benschm9542@gmail.com
If minks are such a danger could we just make mink farming illegal?
The dangers absolutely don't seem worth the gains.
However, part of that was about going from open research to closed.
Because of the strange loopy nature of concepts/language/self/different problems metaphilosophy seems unsolvable?
Asking: What is good? already implies that there are the concepts "good", "what", "being" that there are answers and questions ... Now we could ask what concepts or questions to use instead ...
Similarly:
> "What are all the things we can do with the things we have and what decision-making process will we use and why use that process if the character of the different processes is the production of different ends; don't we have to know which end is desired in order to choose the decision-making process that also arrives at that result?"
> Which leads back to desire and knowing what you want without needing a system to tell you what you want.
It's all empty in the Buddhist sense. It all depends on which concepts or turing machines or which physical laws you start with.
Because of the strange loopy nature of concepts/language/self/different problems metaphilosophy seems unsolvable?
Asking: What is good? already implies that there are the concepts "good", "what", "being" that there are answers and questions ... Now we could ask what concepts or questions to use instead ...
Similarly:
> "What are all the things we can do with the things we have and what decision-making process will we use and why use that process if the character of the different processes is the production of different ends; don't we have to know which end is desired in order to choose the decision-making process that also arrives at that result?"
> Which leads back to desire and knowing what you want without needing a system to tell you what you want.
It's all empty in the Buddhist sense. It all depends on which concepts or turing machines or which physical laws you start with.
but as far as I’ve seen, the correlation between stream entry and suffering is about 0; suffering is as likely to get better as it is to get worse.
I assume the correlation of 0 is hyperbolic. From what I have heard (and my own experience) it seems to reduce suffering. Ingram often mentions lots of people confusing the A&P with Streamentry and then of course afterwards they will be suffering more in the DN. The criteria he mentioned in the post also can't necessarily separate between A&P and Streamentry so I am wondering how often that happens in his bubble. Especially when he then says second path almost always reduces suffering.
However, I... (read more)
This is more towards the personal for someone who does the work vs how society should act towards them:
One interpretation: No one knows you saved the world or everyone thinks they did it themselves.
When people trying to save the world are working for the recognition/results they quickly start goodhearting.
PS: Love the post title.