The following responses from EY are more in genre “I ain’t reading this”, because he is more using you as example for other readers than talking directly to you, with following block.
What if objectionists had a correct thermodynamics-style heuristic that implied superintelligence/RSI is impossible, but which could not answer the question of where exactly it failed? Then the failure of objectionists doesn’t mean they were wrong.
We have to be willing to investigate the new evidence as it arrives, perform root cause analysis on why A but not B happened, and use this to update our models.
And the evidence I’ve gotten since then suggests something like “it is impossible to do something without assistance from a higher power”/”greater things can cause lesser things but not vice versa”, as a sort of generalization of the laws of thermodynamics.
If appropriate thought had been applied by a knowledgeable person back in 2004, maybe they could have taken this model and realized that nanotech violates this ordering constraint while AlphaProteo does not. Either way, we have the relevant info now.
And part 2:
The particular way the objectionists failed was in that they didn’t give a concrete prediction that matched the way stuff played out.
Part 2 is what Eliezer said was false, but it’s not really central to my point (hence why I didn’t write much about it in the original thread), and so it is self-sabotaging of Eliezer to zoom into this rather than the actually informative point.
To be clear, I mean “your communication in this particular thread”.
Pattern:
<controversial statement>
<this statement is false>
<controversial statement>
<this statement is false>
<mix of “this is trivially true because” and “here is my blogpost with esoteric terminology”>
The following responses from EY are more in genre “I ain’t reading this”, because he is more using you as example for other readers than talking directly to you, with following block.
This statement had two parts. Part 1:
And part 2:
Part 2 is what Eliezer said was false, but it’s not really central to my point (hence why I didn’t write much about it in the original thread), and so it is self-sabotaging of Eliezer to zoom into this rather than the actually informative point.