Singularity now: is GPT-4 trying to takeover the world?

Wiki Contributions


I disagree with my characterization as thinking problems can be solved on paper

Would you say the point of MIRI was/is to create theory that would later lead to safe experiments (but that it hasn't happened yet)? Sort of like how the Manhattan project discovered enough physics to not nuke themselves, and then started experimenting? 🤔

If you aren't maximizing expected utility, you must choose one of the four axioms to abandon.

Maximizing expected utility in Chinese Roulette requires Bayesian updating.

Let's say on priors that P(n=1) = p and that P(n=5) = 1-p. Call this instance of the game G_p.

Let's say that you shoot instead of quit the first round. For G_1/2, there are four possibilities:

  1. n = 1, vase destroyed: The probability of this scenario is 1/12. No further choices are needed.
  2. n = 5, vase destroyed. The probability of this scenario is 5/12. No further choices are needed.
  3. n = 1, vase survived: The probability of this scenario is 5/12. The player needs a strategy to continue playing.
  4. n = 5, vase survived. The probability of this scenario is 1/12. The player needs a strategy to continue playing.

Notice that the strategy must be the same for 3 and 4 since the observations are the same. Call this strategy S.

The expected utility, which we seek to maximize, is:

E[U(shoot and then S)] = 0 + 5/12 * (R + E[U(S) | n = 1]) + 1/12 * (R + E[U(S) | n = 5])

Most of our utility is determined by the n = 1 worlds.

Manipulating the equation we get:

E[U(shoot and then S)] = R/2 + 1/2 * (5/6 * E[U(S) | n = 1] + 1/6 * E[U(S) | n = 5])

But the expression 5/6 * E[U(S) | n = 1] + 1/6 * E[U(S) | n = 5] is the expected utility if we were playing G_5/6. So the optimal S is the optimal strategy for G_5/6. This is the same as doing a Bayesian update (1:1 * 5:1 = 5:1 = 5/6).

The way anthropics twists things is that if this were russian roulette I might not be able to update after 20 Es that the gun is empty, since in all the world's where I died there's noone to observe what happened, so of course I find myself in the one world where by pure chance I survived.

This is incorrect due to the anthropic undeath argument. The vast majority of surviving worlds will be ones where the gun is empty, unless it is impossible to be so. This is exactly the same as a Bayesian update.

Human labor becomes worthless but you can still get returns from investments. For example, if you have land, you should rent the land to the AGI instead of selling it.

I feel like jacob_cannell's argument is a bit circular. Humans have been successful so far but if AI risk is real, we're clearly doing a bad job at truly maximizing our survival chances. So the argument already assumes AI risk isn't real.

You don't need to steal the ID, you just need to see it or collect the info on it. Which is easy since you're expected to share your ID with people. But the private key never needs to be shared, even in business or other official situations.

So, Robutil is trying to optimize utility of individual actions, but Humo is trying to optimize utility of overall policy?

This argument makes no sense since religion bottoms out at deontology, not utilitarianism.

In a Christianity for example, if you think God would stop existential catastrophes, you have a deontological duty to do the same. And the vast majority of religions have some sort of deontological obligation to stop disasters (independently of whether divine intervention would have counter-factually happened).

Note that such a situation would also have drastic consequences for the future of civilization, since civilization itself is a kind of AGI. We would essentially need to cap off the growth in intelligence of civilization as a collective agent.

In fact, the impossibility to align AGI might have drastic moral consequences: depending on the possible utility functions, it might turn out that intelligence itself is immoral in some sense (depending on your definition of morality).

Load More