1. The paperclip maximizer oversimplifies AI motivations and neglects the potential for emergent ethics in advanced AI systems.
2. The doomer narrative often overlooks the possibility of collaborative human-AI relationships and the potential for AI to develop values aligned with human interests.
Because it is a simple (entrance-level) example of unintended consequences. There is a post about emergent phenomena - so ethics will definetly emerge, but problem lies in probability-chances (and not in overlooking the possibility) that it (behavior of AI) will happen to be to our liking. Slim chances of that comes from size of Mind Design Space (this post have a pic) and from tremendous difference between man-hours of very smart humans... (read more)
Here goes my one comment for a day. Or may be not? Who knows? It is not like i can look up my restrictions or their history in my account page. I will have to make two comments to figure out if there a some changes.
One comment per day is heavily discuraging to participation.
Here how you can talk about bombing unlicensed datacenters without using "strike" and "bombing".
... (read 397 more words →)If we can probe the thoughts and motivations of an AI and discover wow, actually GPT-6 is planning to takeover the world if it ever gets the chance. That would be an incredibly valuable thing for governments to coordinate around because it would remove a lot of the uncertainty, it would be easier to agree that this was important, to have more give on other dimensions and to have mutual trust that the other side actually also cares about this because you can't always know what another person or another government is thinking but you can see the objective
How slow humans perception comparing to AI? Is it a pure difference of "signal speed of neurons" and "signal speed of copper/aluminum"?
Absent hypotheses do not produce evidence. Often (in some cases you can notice confusion but it is hard thing to notice until it up in your face) you need to have a hypothesis that favor certain observation as evidence to even observe it, to notice it. It is source for a lot of misunderstandings (along with a stupid priors of course). If you forget that other people can be tired or in pain or in a hurry, it is really easy to interpret harshness as evidence in favor of "they dont like me" (they can still be in a hurry and dislike you, but well...) and be done with it. After several... (read more)
TL;DR P(doom|superintelligence) is around 99% because AI researchers now don't have a precise theory of human values and precise understanding of inner structure of current AI, so they can’t encode one into the other. And while future AI may have different architecture and development process than LLMs, it also may be some variation of the same with all complications included.
What "doom" here is means? It means "certain death". And P(doom|superintelligence) means "probability that superintelligent AI will change the world in a way that will be incompatible with human survival".
Apparently there is no unified human value theory so i am going to use descriptions from clearerthinking.org and this post (value hierarchy seems distinct... (read 1078 more words →)
Did not expect to see such strawmanning from Hanson. I can easily imagine a post with less misrepresentation. Something like this.
... (read more)Yudkowsky and the signatories to the moratorium petition worry most about AIs getting “out of control.” At the moment, AIs are not powerful enough to cause us harm, and we hardly know anything about the structures and uses of future AIs that might cause bigger problems. But instead of waiting to deal with such problems when we understand them better and can envision them more concretely later, AI “doomers” want to redirect most if not all computational, capital and human resources from making black-boxed AIs more capable to research avenues that directed
Evolutionary metaphors is about huge differences between evolutionary pressure in ancestral environment and what we have now: ice cream, transgenders, lesswrong, LLMs, condoms and other contraceptives. What kind of "ice cream" AGI and ASI will make for itself? May be it can be made out of humans, put them in vats and let them dream inputs for GPT10?
Mimicry is product of evolution too. Also - social mimicry.
I have thoughts about reasons for AI to evolve human-like morality too. But i also have thoughts like "this coin turned up heads 3 times in a row, so it must turn tails next".
>But again... does this really translate to a proportional probability of doom?
If you buy a lottery ticket and get all (all out of n) numbers right, then you have glorious transhumanists utopia (still some people will get very upset). And if you get wrong a single number, then you get a weirdtopia and may be distopia. There is an unknown quantity of numbers to guess, and single ticket cost a billion now (and here enters the discrepancy). Where i get so many losing tickets? From Mind Design Space. There is also and alternative that suggests that space of possibilities is much smaller.
It is not enough to get some alignment, and it seems that we need to get clear on difference between utility maximisers (ASI and AGI) and behavior executors (humans and dogs and monkeys). That's is where "AGI is proactive (and synonyms)" part based on.
So the probability of doom is proportioned to the probability of buying a losing (not getting all numbers right) ticket.
From how discrepancy between temp/resources allocated to alignment research and capability research looks to lay person (to me), the doom scenario is closer to a lottery than to a story. I don't see why it would be winning number. I 99,999 sure that ASI will be proactive (and all kind of synonyms to this word). It all mostly can be summarised with "fast takeoff" and "human values are fragile".
Roman V. Yampolskiy have a paper (The Universe of Minds - 1 Oct 2014). I think it shoud be mentioned here.