= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukeprog comments on Q&A with new Executive Director of Singularity Institute - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (177)
I'm not sure that scientific talent is the relevant variable here. More talented folk are more likely to achieve both positive and negative outcomes. I would place more weight on epistemic rationality, motivations (personality, background checks), institutional setup and culture, the strategy of first trying to get test the tractability of robust FAI theory and then advancing FAI before code (with emphasis on the more-FAI-less-AGI problems first), and similar variables.
Certainly it's a reasonable concern from a distance. Folk do try to estimate and reduce the risks you mentioned, and to investigate alternative non-FAI interventions. My personal sense is that these efforts have been reasonable but need to be bolstered along with the FAI research team. If it looks like a credible (to me) team may be assembled my plan would be (and has been) to monitor and influence team composition, culture, and exposure to information. In other words, I'd like to select folk ready to reevaluate as well as to make progress, and to work hard to build that culture as researchers join up.
I can't speak for everyone, but I am happy to see SIAI become more transparent in various ways. The publication of the strategic plan is part of that, and I believe Luke is keen (with encouragement from others) to increase communication and transparency in other ways.
This one would be a decision for the board, but I'll give my personal take again. Personally, I like the recorded GiveWell meetings and see the virtues of transparency in being more credible to observers, and in providing external incentives. However, I would also worry that signalling issues with a diverse external audience can hinder accurate discussion of important topics, e.g. frank discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of potential Summit speakers, partners, and potential hires that could cause hurt feelings and damage valuable relationships. Because of this problem I would be more wholehearted in supporting other forms of transparency, e.g. more frequent and detailed reporting on activities, financial transparency, the strategic plan, things like Luke's Q&A, etc. But I wouldn't be surprised if this happens too.
I'll take this opportunity to mention that I'm against publishing SIAI's board meeting minutes. First, for the reasons Carl gave above. Second, because then we'd have to invest a lot of time explaining the logic behind each decision, or else face waves of criticism for decisions that appear arbitrary when one merely publishes the decision and not the argument.
However, I'm definitely making big effort to improve SIAI transparency. Our new website (under development) has a page devoted to transparency, where you'll be able to find our strategic plan, our 990s, and probably other links. I'm also publishing the monthly progress reports, and recently co-wrote 'Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import', which for the first time (excepting Chalmers) summarizes many of our key pieces of reasoning with the clarity of mainstream academic form. We're also developing an annual report, and I'm working toward developing some other documents that will make SIAI strategy more transparent. But all this takes time, especially when starting from pretty close to 0 on transparency, and having lots of other problems to fix, too.
Are the arguments not made during the board meetings? Or do you guys talk ahead of time and just formalize the decisions during the board meetings?
In any case, I think you should invest more time explaining the logic behind your decisions, and not just make the decisions themselves more transparent. If publishing board meeting minutes is not the best way to do that, then please think about some other way of doing it. I'll list some of the benefits of doing this, in case you haven't thought of some of them:
The arguments are strewn across dozens of conversations in and out of board meetings (mostly out).
As for finding other ways to explain the logic behind our decisions, I agree, and I'm working on it. One qualification I would add, however, is that I predict more benefit to my strategic thinking from one hour with Paul Christiano and one hour with Nick Bostrom than from spending four hours to write up my strategic thinking on subject X and publishing it so that passersby can comment on it. It takes a lot of effort to be so well-informed about these issues that one can offer valuable strategic advice. But for some X we have already spent those many productive hours with Christiano and Bostrom and so on, and it's a good marginal investment to write up our strategic thinking on X.
This reminds me a bit of Eliezer's excuse when he was resisting calls for him to publish his TDT ideas on LW:
I suggest you may be similarly overestimating the difficulty of explaining your strategic ideas/problems to a sufficiently large audience to get useful feedback. Why not just explain them the same way that you would explain to Christiano and Bostrom? If some among the LW community don't understand, they can ask questions and others could fill them in.
The decision theory discussions on LW generated significant progress, but perhaps more importantly created a pool of people with strong interest in the topic (some of whom ended up becoming your research associates). Don't you think the same thing could happen with Singularity strategies?
Yes.
Yes, I would get some useful feedback, but I also predict a negative effect: When people don't have enough background knowledge to make what I say sound reasonable to them, I'll get penalized for sounding crazy in the same way that I'm penalized when I try to explain AGI to an intuitive Cartesian dualist.
By penalized, I mean something like the effect that Scott Adams (author of Dilbert) encountered while blogging:
Anyway, you also wrote:
If so, then not for the same reasons. I think people got interested in decision theory because they could see results. But it's hard to feel you've gotten a result in something like strategy, where we may never know whether or not one strategy was counterfactually better, or at least won't be confident about that for another 5 years. Decision theory offers the opportunity for results that most people in the field can agree on.
The "results" in decision theory we've got so far are so tenuous that I believe their role is primarily to somewhat clarify the problem statement for what remains to be done (a big step compared to complete confusion in the past, but not quite clear (-ly motivated) math). The ratchet of science hasn't clicked yet, even if rational evidence is significant, which is the same problem you voice for strategy discussion.
At FHI they sometimes sit around a whiteboard and discuss weird AI-boxing ideas or weird acquire-relevant-influence ideas, and feel as though they are making progress when something sounds more-promising than usual, leads to other interesting ideas, etc. We could too. I suspect it would create a similar set of interested people capable of having strategy ideas, though probably less math-inclined than the decision theory folk, and with more surrounding political chaos.
Okay; that changes my attitude a bit. But FHI's core people are unlikely to produce the Scott Adams effect in response to strategic discussion. Do you or Wei think it's reasonable for me to worry about that when discussing strategy in detail amongst, say, LWers — most of whom have far less understanding of the relevant issues (by virtue of not working on them every weeks for months or years)?
I agree that detailed exploration of Singularity strategies would alienate some LW-ers, and some in the SingInst fan base. It is possible that this is reason enough to avoid such discussion; my guess is that it is not, but I could easily be wrong here, and many think it is.
I was mostly responding to the [paraphrased] "we can't discuss it publicly because it would take too long", and "it wouldn't work to create an informed set of strategists because there wouldn't be a sense of progress"; I've said sentences like that before, and, when I said them, they were excuses/rationalizations. My actual reason was something like: "I'd like to avoid alienating people, and I'd like to avoid starting conflicts whose outcomes I cannot predict."
It'll alienate some SingInst-ers? That's a troubling sign. Aren't most SingInst-ers at least vaguely competent rationalists who are actually interested in Singularity options? Yet they will be alienated by mere theoretical exploration of the domain? What has your HR department been doing?
From a public relations viewpoint this sentence alone is worse than any particular detail could possible be. Because it not only allows, but forces people to imagine what horrible strategies you could possible explore and pursue. Strategies that are bad enough that you not only believe that even the community most closely related to SI would be alienated by them, but that you are also unable to support those explorations with rational arguments.
Personally I don't want to contribute anything to an organisation which admits to explore strategies that are unacceptable by most people. And I wouldn't suggest anyone else to do so. Yet I would neither be willing to to contribute if you were secretive about your strategic explorations. I just don't trust you people, I never did. And I am still horrified by how people who actually believe that what you are saying is true and possible are willing to trust your small group blindly to shape the universe.
A paperclip maximizer is just a transformation of the universe into a state of almost no suffering. But a friendly AI that isn't quite friendly, or one that is biased by the ideas of a small group of abnormal and psychopathic people, could increase negative utility dramatically.
Maybe you can give an example of the kind of thing that you're worried about? What might you say that could get you penalized for sounding crazy?
(Maybe we could take this discussion private; I'm also curious what kinds of questions these considerations apply to.)