How did you conclude from Nate Soares saying that that the tools to create agi likely already exist that he wanted people to believe he knew how to construct one?
Why were none of these examples mentioned in the original discussion thread and comment section from which a lot of the quoted sections come from?
Because he asked me to figure it out in a way that implied he already had a solution; the assignment wouldn’t make sense if it were to locate a non-workable AGI design (as many AI researchers have done throughout the history of the field); that wouldn’t at all prove that the pieces to make AGI are already out there. Also, there wouldn’t be much reason to think that his sharing a non-workable AGI design with me would be dangerous.
I believe my previous post was low on detail partially due to traumatic conditioning making these things hard to write about. I got a lot of info and psychological healing from telling a “normal” person (not part of rationalist scene) about what happened while feeling free to be emotionally expressive along the way. I mentioned screaming regarding the “infohazard” concept being used to cover up circumstances of deaths; I also screamed regarding the “create a workable AGI design” point. This probably indicates that some sort of information connection/flow was suppressed.
If someone told me to come up with an AGI design and that I already knew the parts, then I would strongly suspect that person was trying to make me do a Dantzig to find the solution. (Me thinking that would of course make it not really work.)
How did you conclude from Nate Soares saying that that the tools to create agi likely already exist that he wanted people to believe he knew how to construct one?
Why were none of these examples mentioned in the original discussion thread and comment section from which a lot of the quoted sections come from?
Because he asked me to figure it out in a way that implied he already had a solution; the assignment wouldn’t make sense if it were to locate a non-workable AGI design (as many AI researchers have done throughout the history of the field); that wouldn’t at all prove that the pieces to make AGI are already out there. Also, there wouldn’t be much reason to think that his sharing a non-workable AGI design with me would be dangerous.
I believe my previous post was low on detail partially due to traumatic conditioning making these things hard to write about. I got a lot of info and psychological healing from telling a “normal” person (not part of rationalist scene) about what happened while feeling free to be emotionally expressive along the way. I mentioned screaming regarding the “infohazard” concept being used to cover up circumstances of deaths; I also screamed regarding the “create a workable AGI design” point. This probably indicates that some sort of information connection/flow was suppressed.
If someone told me to come up with an AGI design and that I already knew the parts, then I would strongly suspect that person was trying to make me do a Dantzig to find the solution. (Me thinking that would of course make it not really work.)