The recently posted Intelligence Squared video titled Don’t Trust the Promise of Artificial Intelligence may be of interest to LW readers, if only because of IQ2′s decently sized cultural reach and audience.
PipFoweraker
Karma: 89
When animals are created and destroyed solely for a purpose attributed to them by their human overlords, that reduces their utilisable preferences to zero or near zero. Unless a meat producer had reason to believe that inflicting pain on an animal improved the resulting meat product, that pain would almost certainly be a by-product of whatever the farmer chose rather than an exclusive intent. I personally know no farmers that inflict ‘pointless’ injury on their livestock.
Given any amount of suffering in the animal stock needed to feed, say the US compared to a zero amount of suffering of the in-vitro meat needed to feed the US, if we were basing decisions solely on the ethics of the situation the choice would be clear-cut. As it stands it is simply one amongst many trade-offs, the numbers and data of which I agree would be laborious to define.
The inability to communicate or even experience a preference for the concept of non-existence compared to an experienced or ongoing pain does not invalidate the experience of the pain. In this field of thought I am happy to start from a non-rigorous framework and then become more so if needs be. At a simple level, my model says [for SolvePorkHunger: ‘no pig’ > ‘happy pig + surprise axe’ > ‘sad pig + surprise axe’].
The practical ways to improve such lives as already exist are, broadly speaking, answered by practitioners of veganism, vegetarianism, cooperative existence with animals (raising chooks, goats for milk, etc etc).
If I’m exclusively limiting myself to animals that are raised in an organised fashion for eventual slaughter, I don’t think I need too much data to assign broadly negative values to lives that are unusually brutish, nasty and short compared to either non-existence or a hypothetical natural existence.
In my consideration, simple things like the registering of a pain stimulus and the complexity of behaviour to display distress are good enough indicators.
I’m not certain if we need to understand how suffering works if we can simply remove the organs that house it.
It seems less tricky when a technological set of solutions come along that allow delicious engineered meat to be grown without all the unnecessary and un-delicious bits.
I think the in vitro meat industry will have an extraordinarily good time when things develop to the point of being able to synthesis a lazy-person’s whole stuffed camel.
There is value in having crowds that view you mildly and strongly disfavourably, but much of this value depends on the rule of law in one’s immediate environment.
I think that’s a reasonable position for a preface to take.
My experience with giving people the data behind squatting to go to the dunny is that their awkwardness about it strongly outweighs, initially, their willingness to experiment.
Which leads to the thought that there are probably some provably life-enhancing things that people don’t even consider doing because it is so far outside their social mores that the possibility doesn’t occur. I have had an entertaining few minutes trying to think of some that my great-descendants will be bewildered we didn’t consider.
It may be worthwhile to cast a wider net in order to glean more professional opinions and sources of data while reducing any emotional response. Consider spending a useful amount of time exploring mailing lists, forums, and professional bodies. Google indicates there are tons of professional bodies in both the US and overseas that will have members who have dealt with similar experience and questions before. Some have membership requirements which a determined person can get around without too many problems, PM me if you get stuck. You may also consider asking a similar question on the various ‘Ask a question’ websites, but obviously the responses to a shotgun approach will vary wildly.
In doing so, you may be able to filter for more considered reactions if you phrase it as a hypothetical exam question or another form that encourages people to provide clear reasoning behind their answers. Focusing on the ‘undetermined’ section may lead to suggestions of non-obvious tests or papers that are obscure enough to have not appeared in initial searches.
Editing this page with useful summaries of more detailed information gleaned may boost its search ranking in the future. If it does, you may want to provide an easy way for someone to contact you without creating a LW account in case of the useful but lazy passerby.
If you have boldness, why not contact the writers of the textbook and ask them?
One suggestion is to consider having more than one email for the purposes of separating emails from people who email you about personal things and people who email you about work things. This may be useful in addition to the suggestion in OP to have a separate email for subscriptions/mailing lists.
This has been useful to me in the past for being able to effectively segment my ‘work life’ while on holidays or taking a break without missing out on social updates and emails from friends and family members. Aslo, when I am on holidays in non-urban environments I frequently don’t have the spare bandwidth to download all my work emails to my desktop client as easily as at home.
I suggest conssidering this methodology to delineate a nice, clean mental ‘break’ and to avoid the temptations of ‘just glancing’ at work-related emails that come from having a general email address.
If you are not familiar with Carrico’s blog and writing style, this is a feature, not a bug.
Thanks! Y’know, I actually spotted the doubling up of the pronoun, checked it, thought “Huh, random egotism, naming a centre after yourself” and went ahead and clicked ‘Submit’. Cheers, random brainfart! Edited OP for accuracy.
I would posit that his actual children have a comfortably non-zero amount of influence over him, and that the rest of us have a non-zero-but-muchcloser-to-zero amount of influence over him.
Replying to clarify my point assigned was entirely for AskClippy :-)
Interested to see one anonymous user posting 97%. Would be interested to know if they receive/d follow-up from the institute.
Combining the first two would likely result in a more-memorable-than-most experience.
Does that not-want take into consideration your changed capacity to influence him if you became his child?
While browsing the Intelligence Squared upcoming debates, I noticed two things that may be of interest to LW readers.
The first is a debate titled “Lifespans are long enough”, with Aubrey De Grey and Brian Kennedy of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging arguing against Paul Root Wolpe from the Emory Centre for Ethics and another panelist TBA. The debate is taking place in early February.
The second, and of potentially more interest to the LW community, is taking place on March 9th and is titled “Artificial Intelligence: The risks outweigh the rewards”. All 4 speakers for and against the motion are presently unannounced.
I am a long time watcher of Intelligence Squared debates and recommend them highly. I believe others in the LW community have referred to specific debates in the past. The moderator is quite talented and encourages interesting discourse, and is often successful in steering parties away from stringing series of applause lights together.
Both the moderator and founder of the debates have indicated previously that they have been influenced in the questions asked and experts brought on to argue by commentary and suggestions from the public. I have also had a positive response from previous suggestions made to IQ in the past in relation to other debates. I have emailed them already with some suggestions about who I think would provide interesting commentary and perspectives on the debate, and links to some useful ‘background briefing’ documents that they may wish to add to the resources attached to the debate. I suggest that others choosing to do the same might increase the quality of discourse in a debate that is likely to come up highly in people’s Google and YouTube searches into the future.
Generally speaking, the videos from Intelligence Squared are uploaded to their YouTube account fairly soon after the live stream.
You’re entirely right, ‘Games Trainers Play’ is not at all like Games People Play, but it is a useful book in terms of practical applications of applied human psychology. The amount of value I’ve observed added to newly-formed teams and temporary groups through the contents—in terms of near-immediate cohesion, bonding, and comfortable introductions to group dynamic discussions—has been tremendous.
If I were going to retitle the two, GPP would become “Communicative Dark Arts and How To Spot Them”, whereas GTP would be “Communicative Light Arts And How To Enjoy Them”. I appreciate being able to spot someone else drawing me into a game I don’t feel like playing, or don’t play well enough to get my preferred payout. Being pretty firmly on the Light side of communication, I also appreciate being able to get groups integrated and performing well together easily and quickly, especially in my lines of work, which tend to involve a lot of people working together for short periods of time and with little prior contact.
I like the few games you’ve picked out, and they certainly seem to apply to LW specifically. If I broadened the scope a little, I’d probably pick two of the ‘games’ from GPP that it’s common for me to see in LW-like communities:
Yes, But: This is a game where a problem is stated by the initiator, the (unknowing) respondent makes a suggestion towards a state problem, and the initator rebuffs it with a ‘Yes, but’ and then rephrases or further complicates the problem. Observe :
“I can’t solve X!”
“Have you tried doing A?”
“Yes, but then Y!”
“Oh, well, what about B?”
“Yes, but then Z!”
“Well, you could always C...”*
“Yes, but… [repeat ad nauseum]”
This game is commonly launched into by someone who has either an intrinsic reluctance or a hidden external impetus to not actually resolve their initial problem. Sometimes caused by someone who simply wants to have a vent, and is caught off-guard by someone else not realising this and focusing in on a solution. Otherwise, this is a power game—the problem-stater insisting on being ‘rescued’, not once, but multiple times. May involve subtle goalpost-shifting.
The expected payoff for the Yes-But-er is to eventually wear the respondent down until they throw their hands up and agree, yes, the problem is intractable / we don’t know enough / nobody can really say, etc, etc. The respondent-rescuer may then step in to complete the problem (“It’s easier if I just fix it for you”) or offer their acceptance of the insolubility of a soluble problem (“Well, I suppose some people just can’t lose weight”).
“Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of a Bitch” (NIGYSOB): Pretty self-explanatory, this essentially describes the process of assigning too much utility to a ‘righteous’ retributive action than is appropriate. If followed through on intemperately, can lead to an unnecessary escalation of conflict with deleterious results for either or both parties.
Example: Alice asks Bob for a quote on some web design. Bob quotes $998.50 with a carefully itemised list, which Alice carefully peruses and signs off on. Bob designs the website and realises he forgot the ongoing domain registration charges. He presents his bill to Alice for $1009.50. Alice angrily accuses Bob of unprofessional conduct and refuses to pay the bill. Bob, thinking Alice is being unreasonable, refuses to reduce the bill and keeps Alice’s webpage non-functional. Communication has broken down. Until they de-escalate, Bob has lost out on revenue and Alice has no website.
Alice and Bob may, if they are clever, realise that their actions were disproportionate to the situation. Alice may have been screwed over by contractors in the past for much larger amounts of money, and, having ‘safeguarded’ herself by carefully scrutinising the quote this time around, had a NIGYSOB trigger and fire without realising that an extra ~$10 on a $1,000 bill was basically a rounding error and not worth a great deal of worry. Bob, on the other side, may have had clients try to dramatically short-shrift him in the past, may have had his last few clients default on their payments, etc, etc, and would have had his own, equally seemingly valid reasons for potentially losing all his income over what would be, in effect, a discount of 1% of the value of the contract.
I suggest that the more Musk influences OpenAI’s agenda, the further it moves away from core competition with MIRI.
A counterexample might be if a series of AI researchers in China announced a formation a clone of MIRI but based out of Shanghai—a more clear-cut intelligence race than what we’ve currently go, which is an increasing number of institutions all starting down roadmaps that share initial common ground but have divergent ideal end states.
The thought intrigued me enough to check with a native Korean speaking friend, and they said that cloning doesn’t necessarily translate well and it could have been a question about the size of AlphaGo (in terms of copying it or the datasets) or its reproducability / iterations (i.e. are there v1.01, v1.02′s floating around).