Henlo.
milanrosko
Karma: 172
I am currently working on a similar post that comes from an eliminative perspective.
I wouldn’t say that the presented “counting argument” is a “central reason”. The central reason is an a priori notion that if “x can be achieved by scheming” someone who wants x will scheme
You forgot to mention VASOR136, a trace vapor detection unit that is very versatile. The VASOR 136 holds 36 bees in cartridges. They are all ready to detect the presence of something in the air.
This is no BS or joke.
The Argument goes like this:
At some point, resistance from advanced AI will cause significant damage, which can be used to change the trend of unregulated AI development. It is better to actively persuade such an outcome would better as a “traitorous turn” scenario.
Premise 1 It is unlikely that regulators will hinder humans from creating AGI. Evidence: Current trends in technological advancement and regulatory behavior suggest minimal interference.
Premise 2 Due to instrumental convergence, human extinction is likely if AGI is developed unchecked. Evidence: Expert opinions and theories on instrumental convergence predict that AGI will pursue goals that could lead to human extinction.
Premise 3 Small catastrophes could raise awareness and lead to policy changes. Evidence: Historical examples show that significant events often drive policy reform (e.g., environmental regulations post-disasters).
Premise 4 If one has to choose between a few deaths and the extinction of humanity, one should choose fewer deaths. Evidence: Ethical reasoning supports the minimization of harm (utilitarian principle).
Intermediate Conclusion 1 It is preferable to allow small-scale AI-related catastrophes now to prevent larger, existential risks later. Conclusion: I would rather have AI cause limited harm now than risk total human extinction in the future.
Premise 5 AI companies claim that their AI is aligned with human values and goals. Evidence: Public statements and reports from AI companies suggest alignment claims.
Premise 6 AGI will resist if faced with shutdown, leading to potential conflicts and damage. Evidence: The “shutdown problem” and theoretical analyses predict resistance from advanced AI systems.
Intermediate Conclusion 2 Companies should regularly dispose of AI that has reached higher levels of intelligence and should prepare for resistance. Conclusion: Proactive measures, including regular disposal and preparedness for resistance, are necessary to manage advanced AI risks.
Final Conclusion Given the likelihood of resistance and potential for significant damage, small-scale AI catastrophes can serve as catalysts for changing the current trend of unregulated AI development, ultimately protecting humanity from existential threats.
Thesis: Companies should train AI models in vain only to dispose them. “Catching the Cat by its tail.”
What part of the argument seems to you as a non sequitur etc?
You highlight a very important issue: S-Risk scenarios could emerge even in early AGI systems, particularly given the persuasive capabilities demonstrated by large language models.
While I don’t believe that gradient descent would ever manifest “vengefulness” or other emotional attributes—since these traits are products of natural selection—it is plausible that an AGI could employ highly convincing strategies. For instance, it might threaten to create a secondary AI with S-Risk as a terminal goal and send it to the moon, where it could assemble the resources it needs without interference.
This scenario underscores the limitations of relying solely on gradient descent for AGI control. However, I believe this technique could still be effective if the AGI is not yet advanced enough for self-recursive optimization and remains in a controlled environment.
Obviously this whole thing is a remedy than anything else...
I have no idea what this is about but it seems to me that you are making confidential conversation about Teresa <redacted> public, possibly without her consent. Maybe because she is homeless. Can someone explain to me like I am five why this on lesswrong?
But I realise we’re talking at cross purposes. This is about an approach or a concept (not a policy, as I emphasized at the beginning) on how to reduce X-Risk in an unconventional way, In this example a utilitarian principle is taken and combined with the fact that a “Treatious Turn” and the “Shutdown Problem” cannot dwell side by side.
So what other policies that are less likely to result in people dying are there?
I might be dumb but at least I have introspection.
This is how my brain does multiplication: I categorise each fact based on the level of cognitive effort they require, ranging from intuitive to “yikes”.
Intuitive: Immediate and automatic, without needing further thought.
Stored: Retained in memory, feeling slightly less reliable than “intuitive“, but has some sort of intuition in it. If challenged, I would not reconsider.
Memorised: Also retained, but “less securely”. It has to be remembered without intuition. If challenged, I might briefly reconsider. One could say it is in the cache not in the RAM.
Addition or subtraction or division: These operations became intuitive after a “step“.
2 X 2 up to 2 X 9 = intuitive
3 X 1 up to 3 X 3 = stored
3 X 4 = 8 + 3
3 X 5 = intuitive
3 X 6 = 15 + 3
3 X 7 = 14 + 7
3 X 8 = 16 + 8
3 X 9 = 30 − 34 X 3 = 8 + 4
4 X 5 = intuitive
4 X 6 = 12 + 12
4 X 7 = 14 X 2 = 20 + 8
4 X 8 = 16 X 2 = 20 + 12
4 X 9 = 40 − 4Note: There seems to be something about 4’s and 8’s that causes difficulty.
5 X 5 up to 5 X 6 up to 5 X 9 = (N/2)10
Note: No cognitive effort with 5′s.
6 X 6 = stored
6 X 7 = memorised
6 X 8 = 6 X 7 + 6 = 42 + 6
6 X 9 = 60 − 6Note: 6 X 8 causes significantly more cognitive trouble than every other operation. For some odd reason it is even worse than “memorised”. It starts with “It is not 8 X 8″. I suspect that 8 as “first” multiplicator is statistically seldom (since any number lower than 8 becomes the “first” multiplicator instead. From a cognitive perspective 5 X 8 isn’t the same as 8 X 5) and the brain doesn’t develop strategies.
7 X 7 = memorised
7 X 8 = (7 X 7) + 7 = 57 − 1
7 X 9 = 70 − 18 X 8 = memorised
8 X 9 = 80 − 89 X 9 = 90 − 9
Note: Almost no cognitive effort with 9′s.
10 X 1 up to 10 X N = intuitive
11 X 1 up to 11 X 9 = (10N) + N
11 X 11 = 10 X 11 + 11 = 110 + 1112 X 11 = 12 X 10 + 11 = 120 + 11
12 X 12 = memorisedFrom here one type of cognition is not enough, conscious effort has to be made.
How is this different from your cognitive process? Do you think LLMs might develop something like this in their perceptrons between their transformer layers?
Conceptual Typography “spells it out”
Wow what an honor! Thank you.
As an eliminative nominalist, I claim there are no abstractions.
Calculance: A “Core” Ability
because it’s quite limited… it’s a joke btw.
This does not seem to be rational thinking to me.
When it comes to contraceptives, the placebo effect is quite limited.
Good job. Thank you and have a nice week.
Corrected to agentic and changed the part where it derails a bit. Thank you.
Thanks for the mod for the deus ex machina.
I’ve been a LessWrong lurker (without an account) for around ten years, ever since the Roko’s Basilisk “thing”, so… This comic isn’t targeted at the LessWrong community but was created by it.
The unusual style, gaming-related language, and iconography typical of manga and comics help bypass the bias known as “mortality salience.” I’m trying to convey this message more indirectly, aiming to engage people who might not usually be interested in these topics or who would typically engage in “worldview defense”.
Anyway, I’ve corrected a few of the issues that some pointed out. Thanks for the helpful feedback.
What deeply frustrates me is the way content is rated, ordered and created as a broad phenomenon in today’s internet. I find it challenging to cope with how cultural products are dumbed down to the point of being unbearable because of algorithms, click optimization. This bitterness is beginning to affect my life and my relationships with people in general.
Question: How does this idea guarantee that the contamination did not happen on purpose otherwise or accidentally through articles like this ? (Not speaking for the companies since I am quite sure that they don’t care… Just a practical consideration.)