I have read this letter with pleasure. Pacifism in wartime is an extremely difficult position.
Survival rationality, humanity is extremely important!
It seems to me that the problem is very clearly revealed through compound percent (interest).
If in a particular year the probability of a catastrophe (man-made, biological, space, etc.) overall is 2%, then the probability of human survival in the next 100 years is 0.98 ^ 100 = 0.132,
That is 13.2%, this figure depresses me.
The ideas of unity and security are the only ones that are inside the discourse of red systems. Therefore, the ideas of security may well fundamentally hold together any parties. I think the idea of human survival is a priority.
Because it is clear to everyone that the preservation of humanity and rationals is extremely important, regardless of the specific picture of the world.
If we take 1000 and 10000 years, then the result is unambiguous, survival tends to 0.
Therefore, I would like not to miss the chances that humanity can get through Artificial Intelligence or through Decentralized Blockchain Evolution, or quantum computing, or other positive black swans. We really need a qualitative breakthrough in the field of decentralized balancing of all systems.
Nevertheless, 86% of this game is almost lost by humanity
As we can see, the chances are small. Therefore, future generations of intelligent species will probably be happy if there are some convenient manuals for deciphering human knowledge.
What does the map of the arks look like? Can you imagine how happy it will be for a rational chimpanzee to hold your manual and flip through the pages of distant ancestors?
And to be amazed at how such an aggressive subspecies, thanks to aggression, intelligence developed faster and they defeated themself.
It is unlikely that they will have English. Language is a very flexible thing.
Probably the basis should be that basic development of Feynman and Carl Sagan, I'm talking about a satellite with the decoding of humanity, from "H". I think on Earth you can pick up points for such arks.
Due to the variety of risks, it seems to me that intelligent life will logically arise again under water, especially due to the fact that there are internal energy sources. Are there scientific arks for dolphins?
world peace! Respect for each other. We need great leap in another Integrity and Sustainability Ecosystem Equilibrium. A common understanding that this is the last century for mankind when it can overcome its natural aggression. Well, do not forget about the heritage of the following species.
peace to you! , I would be glad if you tell me where I'm right and where I'm wrong! Kind Regards!
I signed it.
Pacifism is really not in trend. Both sides of the conflict are convinced that they are absolute right: paranoid Russia, and a defensive Ukraine.
Public pacifism is in the minority. Almost everyone has taken one side, or is silent and seeks safety.
For an individual Ukrainian or Russian, it might be danger to sign this.
Like in ancient Roman Empire. People are either for Blue chariots or for Green ones. No one is interested in the opinion that death races are nonsense.
Anyway. It's irrational, but I signed
We have many objective values that result from cultural history, such as mythology, concepts, and other "legacy" things built upon them. When we say these values are objective, we mean that we receive them as they are, and we cannot change them too much. In general, they are kind of infinite mythologies with many rules that "help" people do something right "like in the past" and achieve their goals "after all."
Also we have some objective programmed value, our biological nature, our genes that work for reproduction
When something really scary happens, like bombings, wars, or other threats to survival, simple values (whether they are biological, religious, or national) take charge. These observations confirm a certain hierarchy of values and needs.
Many of the values we talk about reflect our altruistic cosmopolitan hopes for the future, and they are not real values for most people. That's kind of a philosophical illusion that people usually talks after success in other values, such as biological, religious, or national. It's an illusion that every smart person can understand basic philosophical or ethical constructions. For many tech-savvy people, it's easier to wear a comfortable political and social point of view, and they don't have time to learn about complex concepts like "should not do to another what he does not want another to do to him" or "treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as an end, and you would never have treated it only as a means."
These concepts are too complex for most people, even tech-savvy ones with big egos. People from the outskirts of humanity who might also build AI may not understand such complex conceptions like philosophy, terminal, axiomatic, epistemology, and other terms. For a basic utilitarian brain, these could be just words to explain why you think you should get his goods or betray the ideas of his nation for your own.
Many people live in a life where violence, nepotism, and elitism are the basis of the existence of society, and judging by the stability of these regimes, this is not without some basic foundation. People in highly competitive areas may not have time for learning humanitarian sciences, they may not have enough information, and they may have basic "ideology blocks." In other words, it's like choosing comfortable shoes for them that fit well.
If you were to ask people, "Okay, you have a button to kill someone you don't know. Nobody will know it was you, and you will get one million dollars. Will you press it?" For many of them, from 10% to 50%, the answer will be yes, or maybe even "How many times could I press it?" Many AI creators could be blind to cosmopolitan needs and values. They may not understand the dilemma of creating such buttons if they only do a small part of its creation or only part of the instruction to press it.
Maybe it is necessary to input moral and value monitoring inside products so that people use them in fervor not to harm others (maybe even in open source, so they could be so advanced that AI constructors should not use other sources). Some defense in the opportunity to create such things for themselves could be made. If someone could create a big graphical cluster or something like that, then they would have to seek help from advanced AI developers who apply basic precautions against existential threats. Some kind of red map needs to be drawn up so that the creators of the AI, or those who see its creation, can accurately see the signs that something is going completely wrong.
Of course, we cannot know what to do with solving GAI because we do not know what to expect, but maybe we could find something that will, with some probability, be good and identify what is completely wrong. Could we have at least red map? What could everyone do to be less wrong in it?