You have not written anything that seems to me to be an honest attempt to seriously grapple with any of those issues. There’s lots of affirming the consequent and appeals to ‘of course it works this way’ without anything backing it up.
I remember that post and agree with the point from its comments section that any solution must be resilient against an adversarial environment.
Which is the core problem of the distillation and amplification approach: It fundamentally assumes it is possible to engineer the environment to be non-adversarial. Every reply I’ve seen you write to this point, which has come in many guises over the years, seemed to dodge the question. I therefore don’t trust you to think clearly enough to not destroy the world.
This topic is more technical than you’re treating it; I think you have probably misunderstood things, but the combative stance you’ve taken makes it impossible to identify what the misunderstandings are.
I am pretty sure I haven’t. Paul’s statements on the subject haven’t substantively changed in years and still look just like his inline responses in the body of the OP here, i.e. handwaving and appeals to common sense.
I may not be treating this as sufficiently technical, granted, but neither has he. And unlike me, this is his day job; failing to deal with it in a technical way is far less defensible.
You have not written anything that seems to me to be an honest attempt to seriously grapple with any of those issues. There’s lots of affirming the consequent and appeals to ‘of course it works this way’ without anything backing it up.
Providing context for readers: here is a post someone wrote a few years ago about issues (ii)+(iii) which I assume is the kind of thing Czynski has in mind. The most relevant thing I’ve written on issues (ii)+(iii) are Universality and consequentialism within HCH, and prior to that Security amplification and Reliability amplification.
I remember that post and agree with the point from its comments section that any solution must be resilient against an adversarial environment.
Which is the core problem of the distillation and amplification approach: It fundamentally assumes it is possible to engineer the environment to be non-adversarial. Every reply I’ve seen you write to this point, which has come in many guises over the years, seemed to dodge the question. I therefore don’t trust you to think clearly enough to not destroy the world.
This topic is more technical than you’re treating it; I think you have probably misunderstood things, but the combative stance you’ve taken makes it impossible to identify what the misunderstandings are.
I am pretty sure I haven’t. Paul’s statements on the subject haven’t substantively changed in years and still look just like his inline responses in the body of the OP here, i.e. handwaving and appeals to common sense.
I may not be treating this as sufficiently technical, granted, but neither has he. And unlike me, this is his day job; failing to deal with it in a technical way is far less defensible.
As just one example, does this not count?
No, it’s only tangentially related. It in some sense describes the problem, but nonspecifically and without meaningful work to attack the problem.