Ikaxas

Philosophy PhD student. Interested in ethics, metaethics, AI, EA, disagreement/erisology

Ikaxas's Comments

Has the effectiveness of fever screening declined?

Also, mods, how do I tag this as "coronavirus"? Or is that something the mods just do?

Ikaxas' Shortform Feed

Global coordination problems

I've said before that I tentatively think that "foster global coordination" might be a good cause area in its own right, because it benefits so many other cause areas. I think it might be useful to have a term for the cause areas that global coordination would help. More specifically, a term for the concept "(reasonably significant) problem that requires global coordination to solve, or that global coordination would significantly help with solving." I propose "global coordination problem" (though I'm open to other suggestions). You may object "but coordination problem already has a meaning in game theory, this is likely to get confused with that." But global coordination problems are coordination problems in precisely the game theory sense (I think, feel free to correct me), so the terminological overlap is a benefit.

What are some examples of global coordination problems? Certain x-risks and global catastrophic risks (such as AI, bioterrorism, pandemic risk, asteriod risk), climate change, some of the problems mentioned in The Possibility of an Ongoing Moral Catastrophe, as well as the general problem of ferreting out and fixing moral catastrophes, and almost certainly others.

In fact, it may be useful to think about a spectrum of problems, similar to Bostrom's Global Catastrophic Risk spectrum, organized by how much coordination is required to solve them. Analogous to Bostrom's spectrum, we could have: personal coordination problems (i.e. problems requiring no coordination with others, or perhaps only coordination with parts of oneself), local coordination problems, national coordination problems, global coordination problems, and transgenerational coordination problems.

Trying for Five Minutes on AI Strategy

Forgot one other thing I intend to work on: I've seen several people (perhaps even you?) say that the case for AI risk needs to be made more carefully than it has, that's another project I may potentially work on.

Trying for Five Minutes on AI Strategy

Another way to look at it though, is that the AI companies have co-opted some of the people concerned with AI risk (those on the more optimistic end of the spectrum) and cowed the rest...

Huh, that's an interesting point.

I'm not sure where I stand on the question of "should we be pulling the brakes now," but I definitely think it would be good if we had the ability to pull the brakes should it become necessary. It hadn't really occurred to me that those who think we should be pulling the brakes now would feel quasi-political pressure not to speak out. I assumed the reason there's not much talk of that option is because it's so clearly unrealistic at this point; but I'm all in favor of building the capacity to do so (modulo Caplan-style worries about this accidentally going to far and leading to totalitarianism), and it never really occurred to me that this would be a controversial opinion.

It looks like your background is in philosophy

Yep!

check out Problems in AI Alignment that philosophers could potentially contribute to, in case you haven't come across it already.

I had come across it before, but it was a while ago, so I took another look. I was already planning on working on some stuff in the vicinity of the "Normativity for AI / AI designers" and "Metaethical policing" bullets (namely the problem raised in these posts by gworley), but looking at it again, the other stuff under those bullets, as well as the metaphilosophy bullet, sound quite interesting. I'm also planning on doing some work on moral uncertainty (which, in addition to its relevance to global priorities research, also has some relevance for AI; based on my cursory understanding, CIRL seems to incorporate the idea of moral uncertainty to some extent), and perhaps other GPI-style topics. AI-strategy/governance stuff, including the topics in the OP, are also interesting, and I'm actually inclined to think that they may be more important than technical AI safety (though not far more important). But three disparate areas, all calling for disparate areas of expertise outside philosophy (AI: compsci; GPR: econ etc; strategy: international relations), feels a bit like too much, and I'm not certain which I ultimately should settle on (though I have a bit of time, I'm at the beginning of my PhD atm). I guess relevant factors are mostly the standard ones: which do I find most motivating/fun to work on, which can I skill-up in fastest/easiest, which is most important/tractable/neglected? And which ones lead to a reasonable back-up plan/off-ramp in case high-risk jobs like academia/EA-org don't work out?

Trying for Five Minutes on AI Strategy

I had not thought about this again since writing the post, until your comment. (Yeah, that seems worrying if mine really is the only post. Though in my [limited] experience with the LW/EA forum search it's not easy to tell how reliable/comprehensive it is, so there may be related posts that aren't easy to find.)

I actually had a somewhat different model in mind for how polarization happens: something like "the parties tend to take opposite stances on issues. So if one party takes up an issue, this causes the other party to take up the opposite stance on that issue. So if one party starts to talk more about AI safety than the other, this would cause the other party to take the anti-AI-safety stance, therefore polarization." (Not saying it's a good model, but it's the model I had in the back of my mind.)

Your model of climate polarization seems mostly right to me. I was wondering, though, why it would lead to polarization in particular, rather than, say, everybody just not caring about climate change, or being climate skeptics. I guess the idea is something like: Some climate activists/scientists/etc got concerned about climate change, started spreading the word. Oil corps got concerned this would affect them negatively, started spreading a countermessage. It makes sense that this would lead to a split, where some people care about climate change and some people anti-care about it. But why would the split be along party lines (or even: along ideological lines)? Couple things to say here. First, maybe my model kicks in here: the parties tend to take opposite stances on issues. Maybe the dems picked up the climate-activist side, so the republicans picked up the big-oil side. But was it random which side picked up which? I guess not: the climate-activist case is quite caring-focused, which on Jon Haidt's model makes it a left issue, while the big-oil case is big-business, which is a republican-flavored issue. (Though the climate-activist case also seemingly has, or at least used to have, a pretty sizeable purity component, which is puzzling on Haidt's model.)

Applying some of this to the AI case: the activist stuff has already happened. However, the AI corporations (the equiv of big-oil in our climate story) haven't reacted in the same way big-oil did. At least public-facingly, they've actually recognized and embraced the concerns to a sizeable degree (see Google DeepMind, OpenAI, to some degree Facebook).

Though perhaps you don't think the current AI corps are the equivalent of big-oil; there will be some future AI companies that react more like big oil did.

Either way, this doesn't totally block polarization from happening: it could still happen via "one party happens to start discussing the issue before the other, the other party takes the opposite stance, voters take on the stances of their party, therefore polarization."

<politics>

Hadn't thought of this till seeing your comment, but this might be an argument against Andrew Yang (though he's just dropped out)---if he had gotten the dem nomination, he might have caused Trump to take up the contrarian stance on AI, causing Trump's base to become skeptical of AI risk, therefore polarization (or some other variant on the basic "the dems take up the issue first, so the republicans take the opposite stance" story). This may still happen, though with him out it seems less likely.

</politics>

I don't know if climate activists could have done anything differently in the climate case; don't know enough about the history of climate activism and how specifically it got as polarized as it is (though as I said, your model seems good at least from the armchair). This may be something worth looking into as a historical case study (though time is of the essence I suppose, since now is probably the time to be doing things to prevent AI polarization).

Thanks for prompting me to think about this again! No promises (pretty busy with school right now) but I may go back and write up the conversation with my friend that I mentioned in the OP, I probably still have the notes from it. And if it really is as neglected as you think, I may take up thinking about it again a bit more seriously.

Potential Research Topic: Vingean Reflection, Value Alignment and Aspiration

how do we take those notions and turn them into something mathematically precise enough that we could instruct a machine to do them and then evaluate whether or not what it did was in fact what we intended

Yep, that's the project! I think the main utility of Callard's work here is (1) pointing out the phenomenon (a phenomenon that is strikingly similar to some of the abilities we want AI's to have), and (2) noticing that the most prominent theories of decision theory, moral psychology, and moral responsibility make assumptions that we have to break if we want to allow room for aspiration (assumptions that we who are trying to build safe AI are probably also accidentally making insofar as we take over those standard theories). IDK whether she provides alternate assumptions to make instead, but if she does these might also be useful. But the main point is just noticing that we need different theories of these things.

Once we've noticed the phenomenon of aspiration, and that it requires breaking some of these assumptions, I agree that the hard bit is coming up with a mathematical theory of aspiration (or the AI equivalent).

2018 Review: Voting Results!

I hope they are buying 50+ books each otherwise I don’t see how the book part is remotely worth it.

As a data point, I did not vote, but if there is a book, I will almost certainly be buying a copy of it if it is reasonably priced, i.e. similar price to the first two volumes of R:A-Z ($ 6-8).

On Being Robust

This seems like another angle on "Play in Hard Mode". Is that about right?

Morality vs related concepts

I am an ethics grad student, and I will say that this largely accords with my understanding of these terms (though tbh the terminology in this field is so convoluted that I expect that I still have some misunderstandings and gaps).

Re epistemic rationality, I think at least some people will want to say that it's not just instrumental rationality with the goal of truth (though I am largely inclined to that view). I don't have a good sense of what those other people do say, but I get the feeling that the "epistemic rationality is instrumental rationality with the goal of truth" view is not the only game in town.

Re decision theory, I would characterize it as closely related to instrumental rationality. How I would think about it is like this: CDT or EDT are to instrumental rationality as utilitarianism or Kantianism are to morality. CDT is one theory of instrumental rationality, just as utilitarianism is one theory of morality. But this is my own idiosyncratic understanding, not derived from the philosophical literature, so the mainstream might understand it differently.

Re metaethics: thank you for getting this one correct. Round these parts it's often misused to refer to highly general theories of first order normative ethics (e.g. utilitarianism), or something in that vicinity. The confusion is understandable, especially given that utilitarianism (and probably other similarly general moral views) can be interpreted as a view about the metaphysics of reasons, which would be a metaethical view. But it's important to get this right. Here's a less example-driven explanation due to Tristram McPherson:

"Metaethics is that theoretical activity which aims to explain how actual ethical thought and talk—and what (if anything) that thought and talk is distinctively about—fits into reality" (McPherson and Plunkett, "The Nature and Explanatory Ambitions of Metaethics," in The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics, p. 3).

Anyway, thank you for writing this post, I expect it will clear up a lot of confusions and be useful as a reference.

Load More