I personally endorse this as an example of us being a community that Has The Will To Try To Build Nice Things.
davekasten
Karma: 371
To say the obvious thing: I think if Anthropic isn’t able to make at least somewhat-roughly-meaningful predictions about AI welfare, then their core current public research agendas have failed?
Fair enough!
Possibly misguided question given the context—I see you incorporating imperfect information in “the attack fails silently”, why not also a distinction between “the attack succeeds noisily, the AI wins and we know it won” and “the attack succeeds silently, the AI wins and we don’t know it won” ?
I would suggest that the set of means available to nation-states to unilaterally surveil another nation state is far more expansive than the list you have. For example, the good-old-fashioned “Paying two hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars in a Grand Cayman banking account to a Chinese bureaucrat”* appears nowhere in your list.
*If you get that this is a reference to the movie Spy Game, you are cool. If you don’t, go watch Spy Game. It has a worldview on power that is extremely relevant to rationalists.
I think you could argue plausibly that the climax of Vernor Vinge’s A Deepness In the Sky has aspects of this, though it’s subverted in multiple interesting spoilery ways.
In fact, I think you could argue that a lot of Vinge’s writing tends to have major climaxes dependent on Xanatos Gambit pileups based on deception themes.
This feels like a great theory for one motivation, but it isn’t at all complete.
For example: this theory doesn’t really predict why anyone is ever hired above the bottom level of an organization at the margin.
That’s a fair criticism! Season 1 is definitely slower on that front compared to the others. I think season 1 is the most normal “crime of the week” season by far, which is why I view it as a good on-ramp for folks less familiar. Arguably, for someone situated as you are, you should just watch the pilot, read a quick wiki summary of every other episode in season 1 except for the last 2, watch those last 2, and move into season 2 when things get moving a little faster. (Finch needs a character that doesn’t appear until season 2 to do a lot of useful exposition on how he thinks about the Machine’s alignment).
I will continue to pitch on the idea that Person of Interest is a TV show chock full of extremely popular TV people, including one lead beloved by Republicans, and we inexplicably fail to push people towards its Actually Did The Research presentation of loss-of-control stuff.
We should do that. You all should, unironically, recommend it, streaming now on Amazon Prime for free, to your normie parents and aunts and uncles if they’re curious about what you do at work.
Why are we so much more worried about LLMs having CBRN risk than super-radicalization risk, precisely ?
(or is this just a expected-harm metric rather than a probability metric ?)
I think you’re eliding the difference between “powerful capabilities” being developed, the window of risk, and the best solution.
For example, if Anthropic believes “_we_ will have it internally in 1-3 years, but no small labs will, and we can contain it internally” then they might conclude that the warrant for a state-level FMD is low. Alternatively, you might conclude, “we will have it internally in 1-3 years, other small labs will be close behind, and an American state’s capabilities won’t be sufficient, we need DoD, FBI, and IC authorities to go stompy on this threat”, and thus think a state-level FMD is low-value-add.
Very unsure I agree with either of these hypos to be clear! Just trying to explore the possibility space and point out this is complex.
I am (speaking personally) pleasantly surprised by Anthropic’s letter. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/4zrzovbb/website/6a3b14a98a781a6b69b9a3c5b65da26a44ecddc6.pdf
I think at the meta level I very much doubt that I am responsible enough to create and curate a list of human beings for the most dangerous hazards. For example, I am very confident that I could not 100% successfully detect a foreign government spy inside my friend group, because even the US intelligence community can’t do that… you need other mitigating controls, instead.
Yeah, that’s a useful taxonomy to be reminded of. I think it’s interesting how the “development hazard”, item 8, with maybe a smidge of “adversary hazard”, is the driver of people’s thinking on AI. I’m pretty unconvinced that good infohazard doctrine, even for AI, can be written based on thinking mainly about that!
I think a lot of my underlying instinctive opposition to this concept boils down to thinking that we can and do coordinate on this stuff quite a lot. Arguably, AI is the weird counterexample of a thought that wants to be thunk—I think modern Western society is very nearly tailor-made to seek a thing that is abstract, maximizing, systematizing of knowledge, and useful, especially if it fills a hole left by the collapse of organized religion.
I think for most other infohazards, the proper approach requires setting up an (often-government) team that handles them, which requires those employees to expose themselves to the infohazard to manage it. And, yeah, sometimes they suffer real damage from it. There’s no way to analyze ISIS beheading videos to stop their perpetrators without seeing some beheading videos; I think that’s the more-common varietal of infohazard I’m thinking of.
I think this is plausibly describing some folks!
But I also think there’s a separate piece—I observe, with pretty high odds that it isn’t just an act, that at least some people are trying to associate themselves with the near-term harms and AI ethics stuff because they think that is the higher-status stuff, despite direct obvious evidence that the highest-status people in the room disagree.
I’m pretty sure that I think “infohazard” is a conceptual dead-end concept that embeds some really false understandings of how secrets are used by humans. It is an orphan of a concept—it doesn’t go anywhere. Ok, the information’s harmful. You need humans to touch that info anyways to do responsible risk-mitigation. So now what ?
I just want to note that people who’ve never worked in a true high-confidentiality environment (professional services, national defense, professional services for national defense) probably radically underestimate the level of brain damage and friction that Zac is describing here:
“Imagine, if you will, trying to hold a long conversation about AI risk—but you can’t reveal any information about, or learned from, or even just informative about LessWrong. Every claim needs an independent public source, as do any jargon or concepts that would give an informed listener information about the site, etc.; you have to find different analogies and check that citations are public and for all that you get pretty regular hostility anyway because of… well, there are plenty of misunderstandings and caricatures to go around.”
Confidentiality is really, really hard to maintain. Doing so while also engaging the public is terrifying. I really admire the frontier labs folks who try to engage publicly despite that quite severe constraint, and really worry a lot as a policy guy about the incentives we’re creating to make that even less likely in the future.
One question I have is whether Nancy Pelosi was asked and agreed to do this, or whether Nancy Pelosi identified this proactively as an opportunity to try to win back some tech folks to the Dem side. Substantially changes our estimate of how much influence the labs have in this conversation.
Is this where we think our pressuring-Anthropic points are best spent ?