All of amelia's Comments + Replies

Excellent point, thanks!

Another helpful resource to digest. Many thanks!

This is very helpful feedback to think about. It appears the paper you referenced will also be extremely helpful, although it will take me some time to digest it on account of its length (74 pages w/o the bibliography). 

Thanks so much. I appreciate it!   

I find this analysis to be extremely useful. Obviously anything can be refined and expanded, but this is such a good foundation. Thank you. 

Thank you for your thoughtful and useful comment. 

Regarding "AI optimists," I had not yet seen the paper currently on arxiv, but "AI risk skeptics" is indeed far more precise than "AI optimists." 100 percent agreed.

Regarding alternatives to "AI pessimists" or "doomers," Nevin Freeman's term "AI prepper" is definitely an improvement. I guess I have a slight preference for "strategist," like I used above, over "prepper," but I'm probably biased out of habit. "Risk mitigation advocate" or "risk mitigator" would also work but they are more unwieldy than a... (read more)

Thanks for the feedback, but I don't think it's about "cognitive rewiring." It's more about precision of language and comprehension. You said "AI optimists think AI will go well and be helpful," but doesn't everyone believe that is a possibility? The bigger question is what probability you assign to the "go well and be helpful" outcome. Is there anything we can do to increase the probability? What about specific policies? You say you're an "AI optimist," but I still don't know the scope of what that entails w/ specific policies. Does that mean you support ... (read more)

"...this kind of transformer doesn't seem to provide any evidence on whether we can create full-fidelity simulations in the future." 

My point wasn't that WE would create full-fidelity simulations in the future. There's a decent likelihood that WE will all be made extinct by AI. My point was that future AI might create full-fidelity simulations, long after we are gone. 

"I currently think of the simulation hypothesis as similar to MWI in quantum mechanics - it's a model that cannot be proven or disproven..." 

Ironically, I believe many observable phenomena in quantum mechanics provide strong support (or what you might call "proof") for the simulation hypothesis--or at least for the existence of a deeper/"information level" "under" the quantum level of our universe. Here's a short, informal article I wrote about how one such phenomenon (wave function collapse) supports the idea of an information level (if not the entir... (read more)

Thanks for sharing this! It's so interesting how multiple people start having similar thoughts when the environment is right. It seems the simulation hypothesis and AI Risk are inextricably linked, even if for no other purpose than conducting thought experiments that help us understand both better. 

To the people who upvoted this post, 

Thank you very much for the support. As you maybe saw below, the restriction on my account has been lifted! 

As I also mentioned below, I might not take advantage of the restored liberty in the short term. I’ve already begun consolidating all my writing on my personal website (AmeliaJones.org), with links to Medium blog posts for the writing. (The writing that was on LW would mostly be under writing...AI, or writing....physics. There are also short stories and other right-brain type stuff, but I don't think LW ... (read more)

Thanks for being curious! I’ve begun using my personal website (AmeliaJones.org) as a place for all my work. From there, I will have links to Medium blog posts. (Posts that were previously on LW would mostly be under the writing....philosophy, or writing....physics categories on the website.) I appreciate your interest!

Raemon, thank you very much for lifting the restriction on my account! I’m sure it’s extremely challenging to maintain high LW standards, while at the same time trying to promote open dialog with differing perspectives. I don’t envy your job, but I really appreciate the work you do. 

In the short term, I might not take full advantage of my restored liberty. I’ve started using my personal website (www.AmeliaJones.org) for both AI art projects and all my writing (not just LW writing). The writing will have links to Medium blog posts, so people can commen... (read more)

Meta comment on LW, as it relates to this post:

So when I checked this post in the morning, it had received a negative ten (up to that point in time) in “karma.”  When I hovered over the negative ten, I saw the message “3 votes,” so apparently three people strongly disapproved of (disagreed with?) this post. Five days ago, I received a negative eight in karma from two people. I asked for guidance and input, but none has been forthcoming (at least in the five days since then). 

I don’t mind the “negative karma” votes, in and of themselves, but it se... (read more)

Thanks for the follow up. Yeah, that’s a great point. I was imagining the bottomless respect and love I have felt for my own parents and teachers, regardless of the heartbreaking way their intellect erodes and crumbles with age. Yet that does not translate to human society as a whole, let alone AI. 

I agree that AI would be more equivalent to humans if it had designated functional areas. All analogies break down eventually, but maybe this analogy breaks down sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, I’d still love to hear Eliezer and Lex discuss it, alon... (read more)

That's a really useful distinction. Thank you for taking the time to make it! I also think that I made it sound like "simulator" worlds allow for objective morality. In actuality, I think a supra-universal reality might allow for simulator worlds, and a supra-universal reality might allow for objective morality (by some definitions of it), but the simulator worlds and the objective morality aren't directly related in their own right.   

So within an hour, this received a downvote of negative 8, without explanation. That’s alright, but I don’t really understand how it wouldn’t be beneficial to consider AGI risk from every possible perspective and framework--including new perspectives and frameworks--given the fact that this is an existential concern. 

I’m not sure if people consider the simulation hypothesis to be “fringe,” but David Chalmers isn’t exactly a “fringe” philosopher, and he has written extensively about the hypothesis. I limited my citation to one page number in Chalm... (read more)

Btw, I’m totally cool w/ the downvotes on this one. I probably would have downvoted it too, because it’s not at all developed or detailed. 

The only time a downvote or “unfavorable impression” disturbs me is when it’s accompanied by an explanation that makes me think the downvoter is under the impression that I said something I didn’t say, or that I believe something I don’t believe. Granted, even then, the false impression can also be my fault for not having explained myself clearly in the first place. 

In this particular case, I know the post was... (read more)

Great idea! I'll work on that. Thx!

I was also interested in seeing the kind of reaction a philosophical physics post would get, as it pertains to a previous post I made. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss even "far out" ideas on LW.

Thanks for the feedback! Yeah, excellent point about acceleration. In the current version, we actually don’t ever address the twin "paradox," let alone how acceleration resolves it. 

In a draft version of the book, we had addressed the twin paradox, but we got feedback that the book was way too long. There are other topics we had to cut out as well, which makes me a little disappointed in the final product. The original version was over 600 pages, and that was admittedly too long, but I feel like we went way too far in the other direction. Granted, it ... (read more)

One of my books is "Einstein Explained: Special & General Relativity for the Masses" (physics pun intended). Yes, it's pop-sci ("for the masses"), but I believe we convey accurate information. I really feel everyone should understand something about the nature of time, gravity and light; of course this requires passing on at least some introductory knowledge of special and general relativity. Here's a link to the Amazon copy: 

www.amazon.com/dp/B0B8ZGQ8RB 

We tried to make it unique with Nietzsche-quoting dog illustrations that were supposed to... (read more)

Thanks for asking! I don’t have a refined write-up. The value of LW, for me at least, is to propose, discuss, and refine ideas still in their infancy or other prepublication stages. Once I have a truly refined write-up of an idea, I think it would be more in the stage of submitting it to an academic journal. However, at that point, related ideas (and interpretation of the journal article)  would be fitting on LW, and the whole cycle could start again. At least, that’s how it is for me. I’m sure other people find different value in LW. 

With that s... (read more)

One (hopefully) final note: With respect to quantum mechanics, I believe a sort of bare-bones* “nested world interpretation” could explain wave function collapse just as well as the “many worlds interpretation” explains it. (A nested world interpretation would involve quantum behavior coming from the outer world, w/ classical physics behavior originating in, or innate to, this world.)

This belief probably does indeed make me a “crank.” The word “crank” was used by another LW user in a reply to my linked post. Based on the context, I think it was supposed to... (read more)

One of my books that has been referred to multiple times by others in this discussion is 

“Einstein Explained: Special and General Relativity for the Masses” (physics pun intended). 

I published it under my maiden name, which is Amy Louise Johnson. I created it in collaboration with my then-teenage sons. 

I didn't mention the book at all in my original post. Then I didn’t mention its title in the replies to the comments on the first post, the second post, or the initial replies to the comments on the second post. This is because I didn't want t... (read more)

Thank you for your feedback. Here’s my feedback on your feedback. My words are in bold. 

Your quote: Physicist here. Your post did not make a positive impression on me, because it seems to be generally wrong.

My response: I’m really sorry my post did not make a positive impression on you. As to whether it was “generally wrong,” I’ll address that based on your points that follow. In any places where I feel you misunderstood me, that is my fault, because I obviously did a terrible job explaining myself if multiple people misunderstood (which they did). I'... (read more)

Yes, good point. My bad... I was working on responses to multiple comments from both posts, all in a different document, while my dog kept jumping on me. To fix my error, whenever I say something about “You downvoted my post because...” please substitute “My post did not make a good impression on you because....”  Sorry for the mistake. Thanks for pointing it out!

Thanks for the recommendations. I love Sean Carroll's way of thinking. It was exactly this philosophical and "supra-universal" way of thinking that I was trying to defend in my original post, although I apparently did a poor job at it. Anyway, great recommendations! 

Thanks for the feedback on why my post did not make a good impression on you*. I’ll respond to each of your points individually. My responses are in bold. 

• It presents as new something that's not new at all. (Maybe your specific take on the idea of multiple universes and the like is new, but you don't say anything about what that specific take is.) E.g., there's the "string theory landscape" (example book by famous author with major publisher for popular audience: Leonard Susskind's "The cosmic landscape") and "eternal inflation" (example bo

Also @shminux, you recommended learning the foundations of physics. I’ve written some books on special and general relativity. However, it’s true that there is always more that can be learned. I had intentionally used the word “theocratic,” to make my point that the “shut up and calculate” faction within quantum mechanics seems more theocratic than scientific--since science usually involves thinking about why things happen. However, “theocratic” was too extreme of a word. I could have just said the “no-questions-about-quantum-phenomena” attitude seemed unscientific rather than “theocratic.” 

I decided my reply was too sarcastic, and maybe even mean. I apologize. 

I edited this comment because it was too sarcastic, and maybe even mean. 

Thank you for supporting my expression of a nonstandard view. I could have said something that everyone would agree with, such as “out of control AGI is bad,” but with slightly more flowery & nuanced language. If I did that, I would probably have gotten multiple upvotes. However, posting for the sake of popularity does not get us any closer to truth. The frontier of progress only begins to move with proposed views that initially seem to be “far out there.” That is, after all, part of how we define “frontier.” Furthermore, thinking of reality with absol... (read more)

It's so sad that other teachers weren't on board with the advanced topics. Some adults can't stand it when you teach kids about topics that they don't understand themselves. I think it's because doing so makes the adults feel less superior to kids. Just know that you were doing the right thing (if the right thing means helping kids to love learning, and to not be afraid of any topic). And what a gift for your daughter with a second language! She is so fortunate.

Thank you! You've given me lots to think about and research!

Thanks for the feedback! To test the Many Worlds Interpretation, what would it look like to see objective collapse occurring? It seems tricky, because the moment we observe the photon(s), wouldn't they appear to have already collapsed? Please let me know if there are any books or papers you would recommend on the topic. Thx again!

The adults had high expectations of the children; they assumed they had the capacity to understand complex topics, and therefore invited them into serious conversations and meaningful work, believing them capable of growing competent rapidly.

I agree that children are capable of understanding complex topics, and we should take children far more seriously. 

When my kids were young, I exposed them to a wide range of advanced concepts in fields like physics and philosophy. I never "pushed" my kids. Rather, the kids asked questions (usually during car... (read more)