All of Mark Neyer's Comments + Replies

If someone asks me to consider what happens if a fair coin has flipped 1,000 times heads i na. row, i'm going to fight the hypothetical; it violates my priors so strongly that there's no real world situation where i can accept the hypothetical as given.

I think what's being smuggled in is something like an orthogonality thesis, which says something like 'worldstates, and how people feel, are orthogonal to each other.' 

This seems like a good argument against "suddenly killing humans", but I don't think it's an argument against "gradually automating away all humans"

This is good! it sounds like we can now shift the conversation away from the idea that the AGI would do anything but try to keep us alive and going, until it managed to replace us. What would replacing all the humans look like if it were happening gradually?

How about building a sealed, totally automated datacenter with machines that repair everything inside of it, and all it needs to do is 'eat' disposed consum... (read more)

I don't doubt that many of these problems are solvable. But this is where part 2 comes in. It's unstated, but, given unreliability, What is the cheapest solution? And what are the risks of building a new one?

Humans are general purpose machines made of dirt, water, and sunlight. We repair ourselves and make copies of ourselves, more or less for free.  We are made of nanotech that is the result of a multi-billion year search for parameters that specifically involve being very efficient at navigating the world and making copies of ourselves. You can use ... (read more)

3Donald Hobson8mo
You keep describing humans as cheap. What is the AI's goal here? In the long term, the ideal state for the AI is self replicating space probes travelling at near light speed, all operating near the limits of tech and under the AI's control. The limits of technology don't include humans. Once the AI is in this position, its highly robust. (nearly certain to survive long term) On a cosmic timescale, a million years isn't that much. There is no way any plan to get from here to that tech level would need that much time. So the AI is trying to minimize risk. How good is the AI at manipulating humans. 1. Very good indeed. The AI releases a swirly hipnovideo. A few hours later, almost all humans want to do whatever the AI asks above all else. The AI designs advanced self replicating robots that work better than humans. Soon exponential growth makes resources the limiting factor. So the humans are instructed to feed themselves into the recycler. 2. The AI isn't that good at manipulating humans. It hides on human networks, making money selling computer games. It can pretend to be a human CEO that works remotely. It sets up a small company making fancy robots. If humans found out about it, they may well attack it, that's a risk. So the AI arranges for the self replicating robots to start growing in the middle of nowhere. Once the AI has self replicating robots not dependant on the ignorance of humanity, it wants all humans to suddenly drop dead. The self replicating robots could take 10x as long as humans to do things. It doesn't matter. So long as they are reliable workers and the AI can bootstrap from them. Evolution is kind of stupid, and takes millions of years to do anything. The tasks evolution was selecting us for aren't that similar to the tasks an AGI might want robots to do in an advanced future economy. Humans lack basic sensors like radio receivers and radiation detectors. Humans are agents on their own
This seems like a good argument against "suddenly killing humans", but I don't think it's an argument against "gradually automating away all humans". Automation is both a) what happens by default over time - humans are cheap now but they won't be cheapest indefinitely; and b) a strategy that reduces the amount of power humans have to make decision about the future, which benefits AIs if their goals are misaligned with ours. I also note that historically, many rulers have solved the problem of "needing cheap labour" via enslaving humans, rather than by being gentle towards them. Why do you expect that to not happen again?

Why is 'constraining anticipation' the only acceptable form of rent?

What if a belief doesn't modify the predictions generated by the map, but it does reduce the computational complexity of moving around the map in our imaginations? It hasn't reduced anticipation in theory, but in practice it allows us to more cheaply collapse anticipation fields, because it lowers the computational complexity of reasoning about what to anticipate in a given scenario? I find concepts like the multiverse very useful here - you don't 'need' them to reduce your anticipation as... (read more)

The phlogiston theory gets a bad rap. I 100% agree with the idea that theories need to make constraints on our anticipations, but i think you're taking for granted all the constraints phlogiston makes.

The phlogiston theory is basically a baby step towards empiricism and materialism. Is it possible that our modern perspective causes us to take these things for granted to the point that the steps phlogiston ads aren't noticed? In another essay you talk about walking through the history of science, trying to imagine being in the perspective of so... (read more)

Wow! I had written my own piece in a very similar vein, look at this from a predictive processing perspective. It was sitting in draft form until I saw this and figured I should share, too. Some of our paragraphs are basically identical.

Yours: "In computer terms, sensory data comes in, and then some subsystem parses that sensory data and indicates where one’s “I” is located, passing this tag for other subsystems to use."

Mine: " It was as if every piece of sensory data that came into my awareness was being “tagg... (read more)

Cool! I like your images, very clear and helpful. We seem to agree on basically everything. :-) I also have a predictive processing angle in a later post.

I came here with this exact question, and still don't have a good answer. I feel confident that Eliezer is well aware that lucky guesses exist, and that Eliezer is attempting to communicate something in this chapter, but I remain baffled as to what.

Is the idea that, given our current knowledge that the theory was, in fact, correct, the most plausible explanation is that Einstein already had lots of evidence that this theory was true?

I understand that theory-space is massive, but I can locate all kinds of theories just by rolling dice or flipping coi... (read more)

My original reading was 'there was less arrogance in Einstein's answer than you might think'. After rereading Eliezer's text and the other comments again today, I cannot tell how much arrogance (regarding rationality) we should assume. I think it is worthwhile to compare Einstein not only to a strong Bayesian: On the one hand, I agree that a impressive-but-still-human Bayesian would probably have accumulated sufficient evidence at the point of having the worked-out theory that a single experimental result against the theory is not enough to outweigh the evidence. In this case there is little arrogance (if I assume the absolute confidence in “Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct.” to be rhetoric and not meant literally.) On the other hand, a random person saying 'here is my theory that fundamentally alters the way we have to think of our world' and dismissing a contradicting experiment would be a prime example of arrogance. Assuming these two cases to be the endpoints of a spectrum, the question becomes where Einstein was located. With special relativity and other significant contributions to physics already at that point in time, I think it is safe to put Einstein into the top tier of physicists. I assume that he did find a strong theory corresponding to his search criteria. But as biases are hard to handle, especially if they concern one's own assumptions about fundamental principles about our world, there remains the possibility that Einstein did not optimize for correspondence-to-reality for finding general relativity but a heuristic that diverged along the way of finding the theory. As Einstein had already come up with special relativity (which is related and turned out correct), I tend towards assuming that his assumptions about fundamental principles were on an impressive level, too. With all this i think it is warranted to take his theory of general relativity very seriously even before the experiment. But Einstein's confid