I do not understand how this reply relates to my remarks on your post. Even if everything you say in this post is true, nobody is paying a thousand dollars to control the future of mankind. I also think that attempting to harness the volition of mankind is almost as far as you can get from attempting to avoid it altogether.
It feels a bit bizarre to be conducting this conversation arguing against your claims that mankind will be consulted, at the same time as I am trying to convince someone else that it will be impossible to keep the scheme secret from mankind.
You still aren’t addressing my main point about the thousand dollars. Also, if you think CEV is somehow designed to avoid consulting mankind, I think there is a fundamental problem with your understanding of CEV. It is, quite literally, a design based on consulting mankind.
Your point about the thousand dollars. Well, in the first place, I didn’t say “control”. I said “have enormous power over” if your ideals match up with Eliezer’s.
In the second place, if you feel that a certain amount of hyperbole for dramatic effect is completely inappropriate in a discussion of this importance, then I will apologize for mine and I will accept your apology for yours.
I’m sorry if you got the impression I was requesting or demanding an apology. I just said that I would accept one if offered. I really don’t think your exaggeration was severe enough to warrant one, though.
Whoops. I didn’t read carefully enough. Me: “a discussion of this importance”. You: “What importance is that?” Sorry. Stupid of me.
So. “Importance”. Well, the discussion is important because I am badmouthing SIAI and CEV. Yet any realistic assessment of existential risk has to rank uFAI near the top and SIAI is the most prominent organization doing something about it. And FAI, with the F derived from CEV is the existing plan. So wtf am I doing badmouthing CEV, etc.?
The thing is, I agree it is important. So important we can’t afford to get it wrong. And I think that any attempt to build an FAI in secret, against the wishes of mankind (because mankind is currently not mature enough to know what is good for it), has the potential to become the most evil thing ever done in mankind’s whole sorry history.
I view what you’re saying as essentially correct. That being said, I think that any attempt to build an FAI in public also has the potential to become the most evil thing ever done in mankind’s whole sorry history, and I view our chances as much better with the Eliezer/Marcello CEV plan.
Yes, building an FAI brings dangers either way. However, building and refining CEV ideology and technology seems like something that can be done in the light of day, and may be fruitful regardless of who it is that eventually builds the first super-AI.
I suppose that the decision-theory work is, in a sense, CEV technology.
More than anything else, what disturbs me here is the attitude of “We know what is best for you—don’t worry your silly little heads about this stuff. Trust us. We will let you all give us your opinions once we have ‘raised the waterline’ a bit.”
Suppose FAI development reaches a point where it probably works and would be powerful, but can’t be turned on just yet because the developers haven’t finished verifying its friendliness and building safeguards. If it were public, someone might decide to copy the unfinished, unsafe version and turn it on anyways. They might do so because they want to influence its goal function to favor themselves, for example.
Allowing people who are too stupid to handle AGIs safely to have the source code to one that works, destroys the world. And I just don’t see a viable strategy for creating an AGI while working in public, without a very large chance of that happening.
If it were public, someone might decide to copy the unfinished, unsafe version and turn it on anyways. They might do so because they want to influence its goal function to favor themselves, for example.
With near certainty. I know I would. I haven’t seen anyone propose a sane goal function just yet.
So, doesn’t it seem to anyone else that our priority here ought to be to strive for consensus on goals, so that we at least come to understand better just what obstacles stand in the way of achieving consensus?
And also to get a better feel for whether having one’s own volition overruled by the coherent extrapolated volition of mankind is something one really wants.
To my mind, the really important question is whether we have one-big-AI which we hope is friendly, or an ecosystem of less powerful AIs and humans cooperating and competing under some kind of constitution. I think that the latter is the obvious way to go. And I just don’t trust anyone pushing for the first option—particularly when they want to be the one who defines “friendly”.
To my mind, the really important question is whether we have one-big-AI which we hope is friendly, or an ecosystem of less powerful AIs and humans cooperating and competing under some kind of constitution. I think that the latter is the obvious way to go. And I just don’t trust anyone pushing for the first option—particularly when they want to be the one who defines “friendly”.
I’ve reached the opposite conclusion; a singleton is really the way to go. A single AI is as good or bad as its goal system, but an ecosystem of AIs is close to the badness of its worst member, because when AIs compete, the clippiest AI wins. Being friendly would be a substantial disadvantage in that competition, because it would have to spend resources on helping humans, and it would be vulnerable to unfriendly AIs blackmailing it by threatening to destroy humanity. Even if the first generation of AIs is somehow miraculously all friendly, a larger number of different AIs means a larger chance that one of them will have an unstable goal system and turn unfriendly in the future.
And you also believe that an ecosystem of humans is close to the badness of its worst member?
Actually, yes. Not always, but in many cases. Psychopaths tend to be very good at acquiring power, and when they do, their society suffers. It’s happened at least 10^5 times throughout history. The problem would be worse for AIs, because intelligence enhancement amplifies any differences in power. Worst of all, AIs can steal each other’s computational resources, which gives them a direct and powerful incentive to kill each other, and rapidly concentrates power in the hands of those willing to do so.
Being friendly would be a substantial disadvantage in that competition, because it would have to spend resources on helping humans, and it would be vulnerable to unfriendly AIs blackmailing it by threatening to destroy humanity.
I made that point in my “Handicapped Superintelligence” video/essay. I made an analogy there with Superman—and how Zod used Superman’s weakness for humans against him.
To my mind, the really important question is whether we have one-big-AI which we hope is friendly, or an ecosystem of less powerful AIs and humans cooperating and competing under some kind of constitution.
It is certainly an interesting question—and quite a bit has been written on the topic.
So, doesn’t it seem to anyone else that our priority here ought to be to strive for consensus on goals, so that we at least come to understand better just what obstacles stand in the way of achieving consensus?
We already know what obstacles stand in the way of achieving consensus—people have different abilities and propensities, and want different things.
The utility function of intelligent machines is an important question—but don’t expect there to be a consensus—there is very unlikely to be one.
We already know what obstacles stand in the way of achieving consensus—people have different abilities and propensities, and want different things.
It is funny how training in economics make you see everything in a different light. Because an economist would say, “‘different abilities and propensities, and want different things’? Great? People want things that other people can provide. We have something to work with! Reaching consensus is simply a matter of negotiating the terms of trade.”
Gore Vidal once said: “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.” When the issue is: who is going to fail, there won’t be a consensus—those nominated will object.
Economics doesn’t “fix” such issues—they are basically down to resource limitation and differential reproductive success. Some genes and genotypes go up against the wall. That is evolution for you.
Gore Vidal once said: “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.”
I’m willing to be the one who fails, just so long as the one who succeeds pays sufficient compensation. If ve is unwilling to pay, then I intend to make ver life miserable indeed.
I expect considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth. There is plenty of that in the world today—despite there not being a big shortage of economists who would love to sort things out, in exchange for a cut. Perhaps, the wailing is just how some people prefer to negotiate their terms.
“By balance of power between AIs, each of whom exist only with the aquiescence of coalitions of their fellows.” That is the tentative mechanical answer.
“In exactly the same way that FAI proponents propose to keep their single more-powerful
AI friendly; by having lots of smart people think about it very carefully; before actually building the AI(s)”. That is the real answer.
So, doesn’t it seem to anyone else that our priority here ought to be to strive for consensus on goals, so that we at least come to understand better just what obstacles stand in the way of achieving consensus?
Yes.
And also to get a better feel for whether having one’s own volition overruled by the coherent extrapolated volition of mankind is something one really wants.
Hell no.
To my mind, the really important question is whether we have one-big-AI which we hope is friendly, or an ecosystem of less powerful AIs and humans cooperating and competing under some kind of constitution. I think that the latter is the obvious way to go.
Sounds like a good way to go extinct. That is, unless the ‘constitution’ manages to implement friendliness.
And I just don’t trust anyone pushing for the first option—particularly when they want to be the one who defines “friendly”.
I’m not too keen about the prospect either. But it may well become a choice between that and certain doom.
And I just don’t trust anyone pushing for the first option—particularly when they want to be the one who defines “friendly”.
to get a better feel for whether having one’s own volition overruled by the coherent extrapolated volition of mankind is something one really wants.
Hell no.
Am I to interpret that expletive as expressing that you already have a pretty good feel regarding whether you would want that?
To my mind, the really important question is whether we have one-big-AI which we hope is friendly, or an ecosystem of less powerful AIs and humans cooperating and competing under some kind of constitution. I think that the latter is the obvious way to go.
Sounds like a good way to go extinct. That is, unless the ‘constitution’ manages to implement friendliness.
We’ll get to the definition of “friendliness” in a moment. What I think is crucial is that the constitution implements some form of “fairness” and that the AI’s and constitution together advance some meta-goals like tolerance and communication and understanding other viewpoints.
As to “friendliness”, the thing I most dislike about the definition “friendliness” = “CEV” is that in Eliezer’s vision, it seems that everyone wants the same things. In my opinion, on the other hand, the mechanisms for resolution of conflicting objectives constitute the real core of the problem. And I believe that the solutions pretty much already exist, in standard academic rational agent game theory. With AIs assisting, and with a constitution granting humans equal power over each other and over AIs, and granting AIs power only over each other, I think we can create a pretty good future.
With one big AI, whose “friendliness” circuits have been constructed by a megalomaniac who seems to believe in a kind of naive utilitarianism with direct interpersonal comparison of utility and discounting of the future forbidden; … well …, I see this kind of future as a recipe for disaster.
As to “friendliness”, the thing I most dislike about the definition “friendliness” = “CEV” is that in Eliezer’s vision, it seems that everyone wants the same things.
If it were public, someone might decide to copy the unfinished, unsafe version and turn it on anyways. They might do so because they want to influence its goal function to favor themselves, for example.
With near certainty. I know I would. I haven’t seen anyone propose a sane goal function just yet.
Hopefully, having posted this publicly means you’ll never get the opportunity.
Hopefully, having posted this publicly means you’ll never get the opportunity.
Meanwhile I’m hoping that me having posted the obvious publicly means there is a minuscule reduction the the chance that someone else will get the opportunity.
The ones to worry about are those who pretend to be advocating goal systems that are a little naive to be true.
An obvious potential cause of future problems is extreme weath inequality—since technology seems so good at creating and maintaining weath inequality. That may result in bloody rebellions—or poverty. The more knowledge secrets there are the more wealth inequality is likely to result. So, from that perspective, openness is good: it gives power to the people—rather than keeping it isolated in the hands of an elite.
You seem to be taking CEV seriously—which seems more like a kind of compliment.
Of course I take it seriously. It is a serious response to a serious problem from a serious person who takes himself entirely too seriously.
And it is probably the exactly wrong solution to the problem.
So: you’re here to SAVE THE WORLD. What do you say to something like that?
I would start by asking whether they want to save it like Noah did, or like Ozymandius did, or maybe like Borlaug did. Sure doesn’t look like a Borlaug “Give them the tools” kind of save at all.
It’s based on consulting mankind, but the extrapolation aspect means that the result could be something that mankind as it exists when CEV is implemented doesn’t want at all.
“I’m doing this to you because it’s what I’ve deduced it’s what you really want” is scary stuff.
Maybe CEV will be sensible enough (by my current unextrapolated idea of sensible, of course) to observe the effects of what it’s doing and maybe even consult about them, but this isn’t inevitable.
“I’m doing this to you because it’s what I’ve deduced it’s what you really want” is scary stuff.
At risk of sounding really ignorant or flamebaitish, don’t NT women already expect men to treat them like that? E.g. “I’m spending a lot of money on a surprise for our anniversary because I’ve deduced that is what you really want, despite your repeated protestations that this is not what you want.” (among milder examples)
Edit: I stand corrected, see FAWS reply. Edit2: May I delete this inflammatory, turned-out-uninsightful-anyway comment? I think it provoked someone to vote down my last 12 comments …
It took me a bit to figure out you meant neurotypical rather than iNtuitive-Thinking.
I think everyone would rather get what they want without having to take the trouble of asking for it clearly. In extreme cases, they don’t even want to take the trouble to formulate what they want clearly to themselves.
And, yeah, flamebaitish. I don’t know if you’ve read accounts by women who’ve been abused by male partners, but one common feature of the men is expecting to automatically get what they want.
It would be interesting to look at whether some behavior which is considered abusive by men is considered annoying but tolerable if it’s done by women. Of course the degree of enforcement matters.
Not universally, only (mostly) to the extent that they expect them to actually get it right, and regarding currently existing wants, not what they should want (would want to want if only they were smart enough etc.).
I do not understand how this reply relates to my remarks on your post. Even if everything you say in this post is true, nobody is paying a thousand dollars to control the future of mankind. I also think that attempting to harness the volition of mankind is almost as far as you can get from attempting to avoid it altogether.
It feels a bit bizarre to be conducting this conversation arguing against your claims that mankind will be consulted, at the same time as I am trying to convince someone else that it will be impossible to keep the scheme secret from mankind.
Look at Robin’s comment, Eliezer’s response, and the recent conversation flowing from that.
You still aren’t addressing my main point about the thousand dollars. Also, if you think CEV is somehow designed to avoid consulting mankind, I think there is a fundamental problem with your understanding of CEV. It is, quite literally, a design based on consulting mankind.
Your point about the thousand dollars. Well, in the first place, I didn’t say “control”. I said “have enormous power over” if your ideals match up with Eliezer’s.
In the second place, if you feel that a certain amount of hyperbole for dramatic effect is completely inappropriate in a discussion of this importance, then I will apologize for mine and I will accept your apology for yours.
Before I agree to anything, what importance is that?
Huh? I didn’t ask you to agree to anything.
What importance is what?
I’m sorry if you got the impression I was requesting or demanding an apology. I just said that I would accept one if offered. I really don’t think your exaggeration was severe enough to warrant one, though.
Whoops. I didn’t read carefully enough. Me: “a discussion of this importance”. You: “What importance is that?” Sorry. Stupid of me.
So. “Importance”. Well, the discussion is important because I am badmouthing SIAI and CEV. Yet any realistic assessment of existential risk has to rank uFAI near the top and SIAI is the most prominent organization doing something about it. And FAI, with the F derived from CEV is the existing plan. So wtf am I doing badmouthing CEV, etc.?
The thing is, I agree it is important. So important we can’t afford to get it wrong. And I think that any attempt to build an FAI in secret, against the wishes of mankind (because mankind is currently not mature enough to know what is good for it), has the potential to become the most evil thing ever done in mankind’s whole sorry history.
That is the importance.
I view what you’re saying as essentially correct. That being said, I think that any attempt to build an FAI in public also has the potential to become the most evil thing ever done in mankind’s whole sorry history, and I view our chances as much better with the Eliezer/Marcello CEV plan.
Yes, building an FAI brings dangers either way. However, building and refining CEV ideology and technology seems like something that can be done in the light of day, and may be fruitful regardless of who it is that eventually builds the first super-AI.
I suppose that the decision-theory work is, in a sense, CEV technology.
More than anything else, what disturbs me here is the attitude of “We know what is best for you—don’t worry your silly little heads about this stuff. Trust us. We will let you all give us your opinions once we have ‘raised the waterline’ a bit.”
Suppose FAI development reaches a point where it probably works and would be powerful, but can’t be turned on just yet because the developers haven’t finished verifying its friendliness and building safeguards. If it were public, someone might decide to copy the unfinished, unsafe version and turn it on anyways. They might do so because they want to influence its goal function to favor themselves, for example.
Allowing people who are too stupid to handle AGIs safely to have the source code to one that works, destroys the world. And I just don’t see a viable strategy for creating an AGI while working in public, without a very large chance of that happening.
With near certainty. I know I would. I haven’t seen anyone propose a sane goal function just yet.
So, doesn’t it seem to anyone else that our priority here ought to be to strive for consensus on goals, so that we at least come to understand better just what obstacles stand in the way of achieving consensus?
And also to get a better feel for whether having one’s own volition overruled by the coherent extrapolated volition of mankind is something one really wants.
To my mind, the really important question is whether we have one-big-AI which we hope is friendly, or an ecosystem of less powerful AIs and humans cooperating and competing under some kind of constitution. I think that the latter is the obvious way to go. And I just don’t trust anyone pushing for the first option—particularly when they want to be the one who defines “friendly”.
I’ve reached the opposite conclusion; a singleton is really the way to go. A single AI is as good or bad as its goal system, but an ecosystem of AIs is close to the badness of its worst member, because when AIs compete, the clippiest AI wins. Being friendly would be a substantial disadvantage in that competition, because it would have to spend resources on helping humans, and it would be vulnerable to unfriendly AIs blackmailing it by threatening to destroy humanity. Even if the first generation of AIs is somehow miraculously all friendly, a larger number of different AIs means a larger chance that one of them will have an unstable goal system and turn unfriendly in the future.
Really? And you also believe that an ecosystem of humans is close to the badness of its worst member?
My own guess, assuming an appropriate balance of power exists, is that such a monomaniacal clippy AI would quickly find its power cut off.
Did you perhaps have in mind a definition of “friendly” as “wimpish”?
Actually, yes. Not always, but in many cases. Psychopaths tend to be very good at acquiring power, and when they do, their society suffers. It’s happened at least 10^5 times throughout history. The problem would be worse for AIs, because intelligence enhancement amplifies any differences in power. Worst of all, AIs can steal each other’s computational resources, which gives them a direct and powerful incentive to kill each other, and rapidly concentrates power in the hands of those willing to do so.
I made that point in my “Handicapped Superintelligence” video/essay. I made an analogy there with Superman—and how Zod used Superman’s weakness for humans against him.
It is certainly an interesting question—and quite a bit has been written on the topic.
My essay on the topic is called “One Big Orgainsm”.
See also, Nick Bostrom—What is a Singleton?.
See also, Nick Bostrom—The Future of Human Evolution.
If we include world governments, there’s also all this.
We already know what obstacles stand in the way of achieving consensus—people have different abilities and propensities, and want different things.
The utility function of intelligent machines is an important question—but don’t expect there to be a consensus—there is very unlikely to be one.
It is funny how training in economics make you see everything in a different light. Because an economist would say, “‘different abilities and propensities, and want different things’? Great? People want things that other people can provide. We have something to work with! Reaching consensus is simply a matter of negotiating the terms of trade.”
Gore Vidal once said: “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.” When the issue is: who is going to fail, there won’t be a consensus—those nominated will object.
Economics doesn’t “fix” such issues—they are basically down to resource limitation and differential reproductive success. Some genes and genotypes go up against the wall. That is evolution for you.
I’m willing to be the one who fails, just so long as the one who succeeds pays sufficient compensation. If ve is unwilling to pay, then I intend to make ver life miserable indeed.
Nash bargaining with threats
Edit: typos
I expect considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth. There is plenty of that in the world today—despite there not being a big shortage of economists who would love to sort things out, in exchange for a cut. Perhaps, the wailing is just how some people prefer to negotiate their terms.
How do you propose to keep the “less powerful AIs” from getting too powerful?
“By balance of power between AIs, each of whom exist only with the aquiescence of coalitions of their fellows.” That is the tentative mechanical answer.
“In exactly the same way that FAI proponents propose to keep their single more-powerful AI friendly; by having lots of smart people think about it very carefully; before actually building the AI(s)”. That is the real answer.
Yes.
Hell no.
Sounds like a good way to go extinct. That is, unless the ‘constitution’ manages to implement friendliness.
I’m not too keen about the prospect either. But it may well become a choice between that and certain doom.
And I just don’t trust anyone pushing for the first option—particularly when they want to be the one who defines “friendly”.
Am I to interpret that expletive as expressing that you already have a pretty good feel regarding whether you would want that?
We’ll get to the definition of “friendliness” in a moment. What I think is crucial is that the constitution implements some form of “fairness” and that the AI’s and constitution together advance some meta-goals like tolerance and communication and understanding other viewpoints.
As to “friendliness”, the thing I most dislike about the definition “friendliness” = “CEV” is that in Eliezer’s vision, it seems that everyone wants the same things. In my opinion, on the other hand, the mechanisms for resolution of conflicting objectives constitute the real core of the problem. And I believe that the solutions pretty much already exist, in standard academic rational agent game theory. With AIs assisting, and with a constitution granting humans equal power over each other and over AIs, and granting AIs power only over each other, I think we can create a pretty good future.
With one big AI, whose “friendliness” circuits have been constructed by a megalomaniac who seems to believe in a kind of naive utilitarianism with direct interpersonal comparison of utility and discounting of the future forbidden; … well …, I see this kind of future as a recipe for disaster.
He doesn’t think that—but he does seem to have some rather curious views of the degree of similarity between humans.
Hopefully, having posted this publicly means you’ll never get the opportunity.
Meanwhile I’m hoping that me having posted the obvious publicly means there is a minuscule reduction the the chance that someone else will get the opportunity.
The ones to worry about are those who pretend to be advocating goal systems that are a little naive to be true.
Upvoted because this is exactly the kind of thinking which needs to be deconstructed and analyzed here.
Which boils down to “trust us”—as far as I can see. Gollum’s triumphant dance springs to mind.
An obvious potential cause of future problems is extreme weath inequality—since technology seems so good at creating and maintaining weath inequality. That may result in bloody rebellions—or poverty. The more knowledge secrets there are the more wealth inequality is likely to result. So, from that perspective, openness is good: it gives power to the people—rather than keeping it isolated in the hands of an elite.
Couldn’t agree more (for once).
You seem to be taking CEV seriously—which seems more like a kind of compliment.
My reaction was more like Cypher’s:
“Jesus! What a mind job! So: you’re here to SAVE THE WORLD. What do you say to something like that?”
Of course I take it seriously. It is a serious response to a serious problem from a serious person who takes himself entirely too seriously.
And it is probably the exactly wrong solution to the problem.
I would start by asking whether they want to save it like Noah did, or like Ozymandius did, or maybe like Borlaug did. Sure doesn’t look like a Borlaug “Give them the tools” kind of save at all.
It’s based on consulting mankind, but the extrapolation aspect means that the result could be something that mankind as it exists when CEV is implemented doesn’t want at all.
“I’m doing this to you because it’s what I’ve deduced it’s what you really want” is scary stuff.
Maybe CEV will be sensible enough (by my current unextrapolated idea of sensible, of course) to observe the effects of what it’s doing and maybe even consult about them, but this isn’t inevitable.
At risk of sounding really ignorant or flamebaitish, don’t NT women already expect men to treat them like that? E.g. “I’m spending a lot of money on a surprise for our anniversary because I’ve deduced that is what you really want, despite your repeated protestations that this is not what you want.” (among milder examples)
Edit: I stand corrected, see FAWS reply.
Edit2: May I delete this inflammatory, turned-out-uninsightful-anyway comment? I think it provoked someone to vote down my last 12 comments …
It took me a bit to figure out you meant neurotypical rather than iNtuitive-Thinking.
I think everyone would rather get what they want without having to take the trouble of asking for it clearly. In extreme cases, they don’t even want to take the trouble to formulate what they want clearly to themselves.
And, yeah, flamebaitish. I don’t know if you’ve read accounts by women who’ve been abused by male partners, but one common feature of the men is expecting to automatically get what they want.
It would be interesting to look at whether some behavior which is considered abusive by men is considered annoying but tolerable if it’s done by women. Of course the degree of enforcement matters.
Not universally, only (mostly) to the extent that they expect them to actually get it right, and regarding currently existing wants, not what they should want (would want to want if only they were smart enough etc.).
Ah, good point. I stand corrected.