Looking for help with an acausal safety project. If you’re interested or know someone who might be, it would be really great if you let me know/share

1. Help with acausal research and get mentoring to learn about decision theory

• Motivation: Caspar Oesterheld (inventor/discoverer of ECL/MSR), Emery Cooper and I are doing a project where we try to get LLMs to help us with our acausal research.
  • Our research is ultimately aimed at making future AIs acausally safe.
• Project: In a first step, we are trying to train an LLM classifier that evaluates critiques of arguments. To do so, we need a large number of both good and bad arguments about decision theory (and other areas of Philosophy.)
• How you’ll learn: If you would like to learn about decision theory, anthropics, open source game theory, …, we supply you with a curriculum. There’s a lot of leeway for what exactly you want to learn about. You go through the readings.
  • If you already know things and just want to test your ideas, you can optionally skip this step.
• Your contribution: While doing your readings, you, write up critiques of arguments you read.
• Bottom-line: We get to use your arguments/critiques for our projects and you get our feedback on them. (We have to read and label them for the project anyway.)
• Logistics: Unfortunately, you’d be a volunteer. I might be able to pay you a small amount out-of-pocket, but it’s not going to be very much. Caspar and Em are both university employed and I am similar in means to an independent researcher. We are also all non-Americans based in the US which makes it harder for us to acquire money for projects and such for boring and annoying reasons.
• Why are we good mentors: Caspar has dozens of publications on related topics. Em has a handful. And I have been around.

2. Be a saint and help with acausal research by doing tedious manual labor and getting little in return
We also need help with various grindy tasks that aren’t super helpful for learning, e.g. turning pdfs with equations etc. into sensible txts to feed to LLMs. If you’re motivated to help with that, we would be extremely grateful.

[disclaimer: I haven't actually read the short story]

This part from your quote

Yet it is their tears and anger, the trying of their generosity and the acceptance of their helplessness, which are perhaps the true source of the splendor of their lives. Theirs is no vapid, irresponsible happiness. They know that they, like the child, are not free. They know compassion. It is the existence of the child, and their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of their science. It is because of the child that they are so gentle with children. They know that if the wretched one were not there snivelling in the dark, the other one, the flute-player, could make no joyful music as the young riders line up in their beauty for the race in the sunlight of the first morning of summer.

makes me think that this is not just about rationalisation but about the (wrong) belief that there can be no happiness without suffering (or without evil which is slightly different). In fact, you could interpret it to think that the only reason that the child in misery is necessary for the other people's happiness is because the other people believe it to be necessary. Because they believe that there must be suffering/evil for true happiness and they couldn't cope otherwise. This would fit with the short story giving no causal explanation as to why the child has to be in misery to sustain the happiness of the others. If you take them at face value, these sentences actually read like they are the allegedly missing causal explanation: " It is the existence of the child, and their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of their science."

Slightly different point: The ones that walk away sort of remind me a bit of HPMOR's Harry's deliberate rejection of/accidental inability to accept necessary evils. (I think Harry has both of those going on.)

I didn't know this was fiction when I started reading this and then started wondering as I become more and more disturbed and eventually stopped reading pretty early on at the $10 million dollars for the shrimp chef, at which point I was confident it's fiction and confirming so in the comments. I reckon if I read the whole thing, it might haunt me in a way that I don't want to just accidentally slide into because I thought it was differently valuable non-fiction. Maybe I'm the only one who is be this combination of dense, not reading the fiction tag, and sensitive, but I probably would have benefitted from some sort of trigger warning or fiction flagging. (Although I would understand if the author felt like that ruined the art and nobody else seemed to have this problem.)

This is a bit besides the point and not disagreeing with you, but I just wanna mention that I think the difference between son-of-CDT, what CDT wants to modify into, is very, very different from EDT for many of the things I consider most important, e.g. Evidential Cooperation in Large Worlds and most acausal trade. Just mentioning this because I often see people claim that it doesn't make a difference which decision theory AI ends up with because they all modify to sufficiently similar things anyway. (Not saying you said that at all.)

My current guess is that occasional volunteers are totally fine! There's some onboarding cost but mostly, the cost on our side scales with the number of argument-critique pairs we get. Since the whole point is to have critiques of a large variety of quality, I don't expect the nth argument-critque pair we get to be much more useable than the 1st one. I might be wrong about this one and change my mind as we try this out with people though!

(Btw I didn't get a notification for your comment, so maybe better to dm if you're interested.)

I don't trust Ilya Sutskever to be the final arbiter of whether a Superintelligent AI design is safe and aligned. We shouldn't trust any individual,

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole idea of this endeavour in the abstract - but as someone who doesn't know Ilya Sutskever and only followed the public stuff, I'm pretty worried that he in particular runs it if decision-making is on the "by an individual" level and even if not. Running this safely will likely require lots of moral integrity and courage. The board drama made it look to me like Ilya disqualified himself from having enough of that.

Lightly held because I don't know the details but just from the public stuff I've seen I don't know why I should at all believe that Ilya has sufficient moral integrity and courage for this project even if he might "mean well" at the moment.

Greg Brockman and Sam Altman (cosigned):
[...]
First, we have raised awareness of the risks and opportunities of AGI so that the world can better prepare for it. We’ve repeatedly demonstrated the incredible possibilities from scaling up deep learning

chokes on coffee

From my point of view, of course profit maximizing companies will…maximize profit. It never was even imaginable that these kinds of entities could shoulder such a huge risk responsibly.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Conjecture legally a company? Maybe their profit model isn't actually foundation models? Not actually trying to imply things, just thought the wording was weird in that context and was wondering whether Conjecture has a different legal structure than I thought.

minus Cullen O’Keefe who worked on policy and legal (so was not a clear cut case of working on safety),

I think Cullen was on the same team as Daniel (might be misremembering), so if you count Daniel, I'd also count Cullen. (Unless you wanna count Daniel because he previously was more directly part of technical AI safety research at OAI.)

Yes! Edited the main text to make it clear