All of Vincent Fagot's Comments + Replies

This has been well downvoted. I'm not sure why, so if anyone has feedback about what I said that wasn't correct, or how I said it, that feedback is more than welcome.

These two entities are distinct and must be treated as such. I've started calling the first entity "Static GPT" and the second entity "Dynamic GPT", but I'm open to alternative naming suggestions.


After a bit of fiddling, GPT suggests "GPT Oracle" and "GPT Pandora".

It's tempting to seek out smaller, related problems that are easier to solve when faced with a complex issue. However, fixating on these smaller problems can cause us to lose sight of the larger issue's root causes. For example, in the context of AI alignment, focusing solely on preventing bad actors from accessing advanced tool AI isn't enough. The larger problem of solving AI alignment must also be addressed to prevent catastrophic consequences, regardless of who controls the AI.

1Vincent Fagot8mo
This has been well downvoted. I'm not sure why, so if anyone has feedback about what I said that wasn't correct, or how I said it, that feedback is more than welcome.

Wouldn't it be challenging to create relevant digital goods if the training set had no references to humans and computers? Also, wouldn't the existence and properties of humans and computers be deducible from other items in the dataset?

2Nathan Helm-Burger8mo
Depends on the digital goods you are trying to produce. I have in mind trying to simulate things like: detailed and beautiful 3d environments filled with complex ecosystems of plants and animals. Or trying to evolve new strategy or board games by having AI agents play against each other. Stuff like that. For things like medical research, I would instead say we should keep the AI narrow and non-agentic. The need for carefully blinded simulations is more about researching the limits of intelligence and agency and self-improvement where you are unsure what might emerge next and want to make sure you can study the results safely before risking releasing them.

Is there some sort of support group for those of us who are taking the idea that our civilization is in a dead end seriously and can't do much to help on the frontlines?

3Jeffrey Ladish9mo
I think that would be a really good thing to have! I don't know if anything like that exists, but I would love to see one

Well, obviously, it won't be consolation enough, but I can certainly revel in some human warmth inside by knowing I'm not alone in feeling like this.

As a bystander who can understand this, and find the arguments and conclusions sound, I must say I feel very hopeless and "kinda" scared at this point. I'm living in at least an environment, if not a world, where even explaining something comparatively simple like how life extension is a net good is a struggle. Explaining or discussing this is definitely impossible - I've tried with the cleverer, more transhumanistic/rationalistic minded people I know, and it just doesn't click for them, to the contrary, I find people like to push in the other direction, a... (read more)

Vincent Fagot: Where do you live (in general terms if you can provide it, feel free not to dox yourself if you don't want to)? I live in countryside Brazil, so I can strongly relate.

This might sound absurd, but I legit think that there's something that most people can do. Being something like radically publicly honest and radically forgiving and radically threat-aware, in your personal life, could contribute to causing society in general to be radically honest and forgiving and threat-aware, which might allow people poised to press the Start button on AGI to back off. 

ETA: In general, try to behave in a way such that if everyone behaved that way, the barriers to AGI researchers noticing that they're heading towards ending the wor... (read more)

If it's any consolation, you would not feel more powerful or less scared if you were myself.