Of course you can, you just have to make the first set of wolves very small.
CraigMichael
Karma: 639
Imagine fiancéespace (or fiancéspace) - as in the space of romantic partners that would marry you (assuming you’re not married and you want to be). You can imagine “drawing” from that space, but once you draw nearly all of the work is still ahead of you. Someone that was initially “friendly” wouldn’t necessarily stay that way, and someone that was unfriendly wouldn’t necessarily stay that way. It’s like asking “how do you make sure a human mind stays friendly to you forever?” We can’t solve that with our lowly ape minds, and I’m not sure that we’d want to. The closest solution to that I know if with humans is Williams syndrome, and we probably wouldn’t want an AGI with an analogous handicap. The relationship cultured overtime with other minds is more important in many respects the the initial conditions of the other minds.
Maybe dogs are the better metaphor. We want AGIs to be like very smart Labradors. Random, “feral,” AGIs may be more like wolves. So if we made them so they could be “selectively bred” using something like a genetic algorithm? Select for more Lab-y and less Wolf-y traits.
If a Labrador was like 10 or 100 times smarter than it’s owner, would it still be mostly nice most of the time? I would hope so. Maybe the first AGI works like Garm->Fenrir in God of War (spoiler, sorry).
Just thinking out loud a bit...
IMO, I think the rationality project/LW is handling these crises far better than EA is doing.
I’m not really sure if they’re separable at this point? There’s so much overlap and cross-posting, it seems like they have the same blood supply.
Huh… thought I would get disagreement, but not for that reason. Thanks for the feedback. I was trying not to use terms that would appear in searches like FTX, Nick Bostrom or Max Tegmark. I did link to relevant posts where I thought it would be unclear.
Was trying not to specifically mention FTX, Nick Bostrom or Max Tegmark. I wanted to keep the audience to people who were familiar with it and not people Googling the topics who were off-forum and not EA or rationalist types.
I tried to make that clear in the introduction.
It was intended to be tonge-in-cheek, but okay, point taken.
Even among my Twitter followers, quite a few want to ban gas stoves, with a strong partisan effect.
To be fair, you phrased this as “new construction” in the Twitter poll.
I would like to see them throttled (perhaps not banned but discouraged) in new residential construction, not in existing residential dwellings. Then it sort of works like alcohol licenses in Colorado. They can be inherited but it’s hard to get new ones (approvals in this case, not the actual stoves).
That goes against some other libertarian leanings I have, but I’m intrigued by the scarcity it would create/maintain. I think it would improve/keep urban character. Gas stoves have character and if you just let anyone have them, they’ll lose their je ne sais quoi. I like that they pair well with old neighborhoods and wood floors. I don’t want the suburbs to mimic that and cheapen it—to their own detriment. Being a suburb that’s poorly attempting to mimic urbanity is just ugly and is a bad substitute for coming up with novel ideas.
I know this sounds strange, but Denver suburbs have this trend where they have these little pockets that try to create an artificial sense of urbanity—including urban restaurants opening franchises—in these fugazi pockets of inorganic city, but with massive parking lots and no sense of walkability. It’s just gross. It’s tacky and it’s poor taste.
Commercially, I’m okay with new and existing restaurants using them.
Am with you very much here. Recently decided that I need to start doing this more often. Negative karma isn’t really negative karma if you’ve learned something from the experience.
“Successful” is an odd concept with it comes to social media. Most people would call Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc, successful. I think that’s like saying oxycontin is successful, or McDonalds is successful, or Doritos is successful. It depends on the point of view you’re looking at it from.
There’s an argument to be made that it’s better to influence a small number of people profoundly, then influence a large number of people negligibly (as you might do on larger networks, where any influence you might have will be almost entirely washed away by whatever is more viral). In fact, that’s why I’m on LessWrong, the scale is more apt.
I considered self-hosting, but an email server is already more complex than I want to manage and a Mastodon server is much more so.
I have no affiliation here, but there’s lots of places like masto.host where you can pay to host your own instance. Sure, someone running your VM might do something awful. But… that’s cloud hosting.
I will vouch for the admin of linuxrocks.online, been on their for years (and other than some unfortunate downtime), it’s been solid (in the drama-free sense).
I’m wondering why not just call for mutual disarmament under IAEA supervision? There’s an old, but now very relevant episode of 80000 hours with Daniel Ellsberg;
https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/daniel-ellsberg-doomsday-machines/
I didn’t keep the time stamps, but he gets in to the approximate number of warheads a state should need as a deterrent, and says it’s probably not more than 100.
Luisa Rodriguez has an excellent post on the EA forum with fairly current estimates of the downstream effects of a nuclear exchange between US and Russia with the 2019 arsenal. She estimates a US-Russian nuclear exchange would result in a 5.1 to 58 Tg of schmutz entering the atmosphere, best guess is 31 Tg. (A NATO-Russia exchange would likey be more since would also involve France and the UK.)
31 Tg would put us in a “nuclear autum” but would be very close to a nuclear winter, just another couple Tg from a full NATO-Russia exchange would likely put us on the winter part of the sigmoid curve. (LW isn’t letting post images in the comment like it usually does, but relevant graphs are in the paper).
Taking Statista’s numbers and assuming the megatons about average out
Russia (5,977), USA (5,428), China (350), France (290), United Kingdom (225), Pakistan (165), India (160), Israel (90), North Korea (20).https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/
Let’s say we capped everyone at 100, there’s less than 900 warheads in the world, we’re well under nuclear winter if the exchange is between two states. Even if the US and Russia just come down to 350 for parity with China, we’ve still substantially reduced the risk.
The ultimate recklessness I see here is that we haven’t discussed mutual nuclear disarmament in earnest as part of this war. When are we going to have a better opportunity? And if Putin is asked and he does anything other than enthusiastically agree, doesn’t that tell us everything we need to know?
Posted three examples that I thought to screencap when they occurred, but if I tracked everything there would be hundreds. https://twitter.com/craigtalbert/status/1586952770170388481?s=20&t=8BtJYArZ9wtMJrJQK2IR4g
I can’t say for certain, but my hunch is that you’re dead on here.
You were ahead of the curve here.
Yeah… if this happens everyone will have to make their own choices. I may or may not regret mine. Sometimes I feel like the old man here. Like I’m not sure if you were around the Internet when it was a little more wild west. Sites with content like this (CW: euthanasia) were more common. I don’t want to be macabre or maudlin or put ideas in anyone’s head, but I thought about keeping some of the proven materials to implement that at my disposal given current events… But with the acceleration of things recently, it’s like there’s a pep in my step that I don’t remember feeling before. If there is a fight against Neo-Eurasianism (CW: novel left- and right-wing memetic miscegenation), I feel like it’s worth fighting against. If most people die and I survive, I feel like I have a duty to the future. Maybe you could call it a kind of Longtermism.
That being said, pep isn’t a reason to paint the devil on the wall. I really don’t want people I love to die. I don’t want innocent people to die. It could just be a happy death spiral and I don’t want to get carried away with it.
Anyway, that’s probably more self-disclosure than anyone signed up for. :)
You booby trap your house? What if some kids stumble in or something 50 years from now?
Luisa says Rodriguez says a US-Russia exchange is 5.1 to 58 Tg of schmutz in the atmosphere. Her best guess is 31 Tg. A NATO-Russia exchange would be larger. Important figures below. 31 Tg puts us on the edge of “nuclear autumn.” Full scale NATO-Russia is probably nuclear winter.
But even if I did survive, that Hatchet-style life doesn’t sound very good.
Maybe. Maybe it will be the first time you really feel alive and some of the most exhilarating moments of your life. It’s better to wear out than to rust out, as our grandparents used to say.
In general humans suck at affective forecasting, so don’t discount this so quickly.
I, for one, want to see what happens. Even if it sucks. Even if it’s horrible. Even if most of the people I know and love are dead. I believe in humanity, and maybe I don’t make 1⁄2 copies of my genes but my species survives.
Are this visible at the typical user level?