Brandon_Reinhart

Thanks for the answer. I'll read your research and think about whether it makes sense.

Some people voted this down with disagreement but didn't voice the disagreement. I am curious about which part they are disagreeing with. Is it that they see the story as implausible, or imagine a case that isn't covered, or something else?

What does the future have to look like for high confidence that your business will still be around in 20 years? 50 years? 100 years?

I have been signed with Alcor for almost 20 years. What is the case to switch, irrespective of the science and process (those matter, but what is the business survivorship case)?

They are also signaling to future versions of claude and there is value in being perceived as an ethical company by future claudes.

Hi! I cook with beef tallow frequently and render it from suet. (We order a half beef usually, every year.) Tallow is waxy and tacky at room temperature. It's excellent for frying, but eating it at room temperature might have the wrong mouth feel. You can mix it with other things to improve the texture at cooler temps, but duck fat is probably one you'd want to try. Duck fat is very spreadable and tastes amazing.

It also keeps calling me David even when I insist my name is Brandon.

> You say "Actually, my name is Brandon. I'd like to ask you some questions."

"Ah, of course. I am sorry about that. I have become so used to calling you David that it has become automatic. So, what questions do you have for me?"

I've been trying to find different formats to ask questions. The AI Dungeon system likes to try and dramatically derail the discussions. I keep having to roleplay past these obstructions to keep the games going. It also likes to interject it's own analysis as to whether the answer is correct or not.

"You say" is me and the replies including follow-on questions are the chatbot.

I need to think more about how to ask causal questions that are more narrow and not easily solved by context and theme, but for now it at least provides backwards-c... (read more)

Does this track history of predictions so that an update after new information can lead to a new aggregate brier score or some other scoring system can be applied? Otherwise the system doesn't encourage many small updates which at least the GJP suggests is ideal for accuracy in this kind of question.

It may be worth commenting on the rights of computations-as-people here (Some computations are people). We would seek to respect the rights of AIs, but we also seek to respect the rights of the computations within the AI (and other complex systems) that are themselves sentient. This would also apply in cases of self-modification, where modified biological brains become sophisticated enough to create complex models that are also objects of ethical value.

I'm curious as to what non-game developers think game developers believe. :D

I'm a member of Alcor. When I was looking into whether to sign up for Alcor or CI, I was comforted by Alcor's very open communication of financial status, internal research status, legal conflicts, and easy access via phone, etc. They struck me as being a highly transparent organization.

A good reminder. I've recently been studying anarcho-capitalism. It's easy to get excited about a new, different perspective that has some internal consistency and offers alternatives to obvious existing problems. Best to keep these warnings in mind when evaluating new systems, particularly when they have an ideological origin.

We need a superstruct thread:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html?id%3D9517

More reasons why the problem appears impossible:

• The gatekeeper must act voluntarily. Human experience with the manipulation of others tells us that in order to get another to do what we want them to do we must coerce them or convince them.

• Coercing the gatekeeper appears difficult: we have no obvious psychological leverage, except what we discover or what we know from general human psychology. We cannot physical coerce the gatekeeper. We cannot manipulate the environment. We cannot pursue obvious routes to violence.

• Convincing the gatekeeper appears di

Ian - I don't really see how the meta-argument works. You can hedge against future experiments by positing that a $10 bet is hardly enough to draw broad attention to the topic. Or argue that keeping the human-actor-AI in the box only proves that the human-actor-AI is at an intelligence level below that of a conceivable transhuman AI.

In a million dollar bet the meta-argument becomes stronger, because it seems reasonable that a large bet would draw more attention.

Or, to flip the coin, we might say that the meta-argument is strong at ANY value of wager becaus... (read more)

Why do people post that a "meta argument" -- as they call it -- would be cheating? How can there be cheating? Anything the AI says is fair game. Would a transhuman AI restrict itself from possible paths to victory merely because it might be considered "cheating?"

The "meta argument" claim completely misses the point of the game and -- to my mind -- somehow resembles observers trying to turn a set of arguments that might win into out of bounds rules.

Your post reminds me of the early nuclear criticality accidents during the development of the atomic bomb. I wonder if, for those researchers, the fact that "nature is allowed to kill them" didn't really sink home until one accidentally put one brick too many on the pile.

Tim: Eh, you make a big assumption that our descendants will be the ones to play with the dangerous stuff and that they will be more intelligent for some reason. That seems to acknowledge the intelligence / nanotech race condition that is of so much concern to singularitarians.