Chinese Room


Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


What I meant is self driving *safely* (i.e. at least somewhat safer than humans do currently, including all the edge cases) might be an AGI-complete problem, since:

  1. We know it's possible for humans
  2. We don't really know how to provide safety guarantees in the sense of conventional high-safety systems for current NN architectures
  3. Driving safely with cameras likely requires having considerable insight into a lot of societal/game-theoretic issues related to infrastructure and other driver behaviors (e.g. in some cases drivers need to guess a reasonable intent behind incomplete infrastructure or other driver actions, where determining what's reasonable is the difficult part)

In contrast to this, if we have precise and reliable enough 3d sensors, we can relegate safety to normal physics-based non-NN controllers and safety programming techniques, which we already know how to work with. Problems with such sensors are currently cost and weather resistance

My current hypothesis is:

  1. Cheap practical sensors (cameras and, perhaps, radars) more or less require (aligned) AGI for safe operation
  2. Better 3d sensors (lidars), which could, in theory, enable safe driving with existing control theory approaches, are still expensive, impaired by weather and, possibly, interference from other cars with similar sensors, i.e. impractical

No references, but can expand on reasoning if needed

Addendum WRT Crimean economic situation:, which provided 85% of the peninsula's water supply, was shut down from 2014 to 2022, reducing land under cultivation 10-fold, which had a severe effect of the region's economics

What's extra weird about Nordstream situation is that apparently one of the two NS-2 pipelines survived and can still be put into operation after inspection while a few months earlier (May 2022?) Gazprom announced that half of the natural gas supply earmarked for NS-2 will be redirected to domestic uses.

This should be, in fact, a default hypothesis since enough people outside of the EA bubble will actively want to use AI (perhaps, aligned to them personally instead of wider humanity) for their own competitive advantage without any regard to other people well-being or long-term survival of humanity

So, a pivotal act, with all its implied horrors, seems to be the only realistic option

Economics of nuclear reactors aren't particularly great due to regulatory costs and (at least in most western countries) low build rates/talent shortage. This can be improved by massively scaling nuclear energy up (including training more talent), but there isn't any political will to do that

Somewhat meta: would it not be preferable if more people accepted humanity and human values mortality/transient nature and more attention was directed towards managing the transition to whatever could be next instead of futile attempts to prevent anything that doesn't align with human values from ever existing in this particular light cone? Is Eliezer's strong attachment to human values a potential giant blindspot?

Load More