All of KvmanThinking's Comments + Replies

Great response, first of all. Strong upvoted.

My subconscious gave me the following answer, after lots of trying-to-get-it-to-give-me-a-satisfactory-answer:

"Everyone tells you that you're super smart, not because you actually are (in reality, you are probably only slightly smarter than average) but because you have a variety of other traits which are correlated with smartness (i.e: having weird hobbies/interests, getting generally good grades, knowing a lot of very big and complicated-sounding words, talking as if my speech is being translated literal... (read more)

Would that imply that there is a hard, rigid, and abrupt limit on how accurately you can predict the actions of a conscious being without actually creating a conscious being? And if so, where is this limit?

I guess you mean on an intuitive level, you feel you have X intelligence, but upon self-reflection, you think you have Y intelligence. And you can't change X to match Y.

Yes, that's exactly correct.

I am aware of all of these things. Although, I don't believe that I am smarter than others. (I alieve it though, I just don't want to.) After all, if I was significantly smarter, then I would probably have successfully done an intelligence-requiring major thing by now. Also, if I was significantly smarter, I would be able to understand intelligence-requiring books. I fully believe, in my deliberate, conscious mind, that I am not significantly smarter than others in my environment, I just have lots of weird interests and stuff.

Is there a non-mysterious explanation somewhere of the idea that the universe "conserves information"?

ahh that makes sense. should i just move it there now?

A "shortform/open thread"?

ah

Ah. Thanks! (by the way, when these questions get answered, should I take them down or leave them up for others?)

Good point. Really sorry. Just changed it.

Has Musk tried to convince the other AI companies to also worry about safety?

The difference is that if the Exxon Mobil CEO internalizes that (s)he is harming the environment, (s)he has to go and get a completely new job, probably building dams or something. But if Sam Altman internalizes that he is increasing our chance of extinction, all he has to do is tell all his capability researchers to work on alignment, and money is still coming in; only now, less of it comes from ChatGPT subscriptions and more of it comes from grants from the Long-Term Future Fund. It's a much easier and lighter shift. Additionally, he knows that he can go... (read more)

Could someone add "7. Why do very smart people in high places say this is not a problem?" (Or you could just reply to this comment.)

quantum immortality is not going to work out

How come?

That's a pretty big "somehow".

I don't think such considerations apply to upvotes nearly as much if at all. Upvotes indicate agreement or approval, which doesn't need to be explained as thoroughly as disagreement (which usually involves having separate, alternative ideas in your head different from the ideas of the one you are disagreeing with)

I believe that the reason your comment was strong downvoted was because you implied that "everyone repeating things already said" is an inevitable consequence of asking people why they disagree with you. This might be true on other websites (where people are hesitant to relinquish beliefs and opinions), but not on LessWrong.

I had upvoted the ones I agreed with and thought were helpful. If I agree with something, I will upvote, because simply saying "I agree" is unnecessary when I can just click on a check mark. I appreciate and recognize the effort of those 5 other people who commented, but that is well enough communicated through agreement karma. Just because I have nothing to say about a response someone provided doesn't mean I don't value it.

Your answer wasn't cryptic at all. Don't worry. This is a great answer. Let me know when you're done with that sequence. I'll have to read it.

(Also, it's horrifying that people can be hypnotized against their will. That makes me simultaneously thankful-that and curious-why it isn't more widely practiced...) 

Something like TNIL or Real Character might be used for maximum intellectual utility. But I cannot see how simply minimizing the amount of words that need to exist for compact yet precise communication would help correct the corrupted machinery our minds run on.

By "make its users more aware of their biases" I mean, for example, a language where it's really obvious when you say something illogical, or have a flaw in your reasoning.

Some ideas I had for this:

• Explicitly defined sematic spaces for every word, to dissolve questions and help people agree on the locations of phenomena in thingspace. Mechanisms for searching thingspace (while, for example, you can say "red chair" to narrow the space of all chairs down to the space of all chairs which reflect red light, it would be nice to be able to express things like "t

why is vegan censored?

Also, it helps taboo your words. For example, "Toki Pona helps taboo your words" would be rendered as
tenpo toki pi toki pona li sama e tenpo toki pi ni: jan li ken kepeken ala e nimi pi ken ala sona pi pali lili.
"(the) speech-time related to Toki Pona is similar or the same as (the) speech-time with this quality: (the) person cannot use word(s) which cannot be known via small effort." 

Before you complain that this is too long a phrase to be used practically, try to explain the concept of rationalist taboo in less syllables than I did in Toki Pona, whilst not relying on other rationalist jargon.

by "making an AI that builds utopia and stuff" I mean an AI that would act in such a way that rather than simply obeying the intent of its promptors, it goes and actively improves the world in the optimal way. An AI which has fully worked out Fun Theory and simply goes around filling the universe with pleasure and beauty and freedom and love and complexity in such a way that no other way would be more Fun.

it will not consider it acceptable to kill me and instantly replace me with a perfect copy

Why not? I would find this acceptable, considering you are your information system.

I disagree with your disagreement of Eliezer and Connor's conclusions, but I still upvoted because you worded your argument and response quite well. Judging from your comments, you seem not to have a very high opinion of LessWrong, and yet you choose to interact anyways, because you would like to counterargue. You think we are just a big echo chamber of doom, and yet you learn our jargon. Good job. I disagree with what you say, but thank you for being the dissent we encourage. If you would like to know why we believe what we do, you would do well to read t... (read more)

I have an irrational preference

If your utility function weights you knowing things higher than most people's, that is not an irrationality.

It's "101"? I searched the regular internet to find out, but I got some yes's and some no's, which I suspect were just due to different definitions of intelligence.

It's controversial?? Has that stopped us before? When was it done to death?

I'm just confused, because if people downvote my stuff, they're probably trying to tell me something, and I don't know what it is. So I'm just curious.

Thanks. By the way, do you know why this question is getting downvoted?

I already figured that. The point of this question was to ask if there could possibly exist things that look indistinguishable from true alignment solutions (even to smart people), but that aren't actually alignment solutions. Do you think things like this could exist?
 

By the way, good luck with your plan. Seeing people actively go out and do actually meaningful work to save the world gives me hope for the future. Just try not to burn out. Smart people are more useful to humanity when their mental health is in good shape.

1. Yes, human intelligence augmentation sounds like a good idea.
2. There are all sorts of "strategies" (turn it off, raise it like a kid, disincentivize changing the environment, use a weaker AI to align it) that people come up with when they're new to the field of AI safety, but that are ineffective. And their ineffectiveness is only obvious and explainable by people who specifically know how AI behaves. Supposes there are strategies which ineffectiveness is only obvious and explainable by people who know way more about decisions and agents and optimal strategi

Uh, this is a human. Humans find it much harder to rationalize away the suffering of other humans, compared to rationalizing animal suffering.

And the regular, average people in this future timeline consider stuff like this ethically okay?

hack reality via pure math

What - exactly - do you mean by that?

The above statement could be applied to a LOT of other posts too, not just this one.

How were these discovered? Slow, deliberate thinking, or someone trying some random thing to see what it does and suddenly the AI is a zillion times smarter?

I certainly believe he could. After reading Tamsin Leake's "everything is okay" (click the link if you dare), I felt a little unstable, and felt like I had to expend deliberate effort to not think about the described world in sufficient detail in order to protect my sanity. I felt like I was reading something that had been maximized by a semi-powerful AI to be moving, almost infohazardously moving, but not quite; that this approached the upper bound of what humans could read while still accepting the imperfection of their current conditions.

utopia

It's a protopia. It is a word better than ours. It is not perfect. It would be advisable to keep this in mind. dath ilan likely has its own, separate problems.

And I’m not even mentioning the strange sexual dynamics

Is this a joke? I'm confused.

yeah, the moment i looked at the big diagram my brain sort of pleasantly overheated

I think the flaw is how he claims this:

No one begins to truly search for the Way until their parents have failed them, their gods are dead, and their tools have shattered in their hand.

I think that these three things are not things that cause a desire for rationality, but things that rationality makes you notice.

why is this so downvoted? just curious

If I am not sufficiently terrified by the prospect of our extinction, I will not take as much steps to try and reduce its likelihood. If my subconscious does not internalize this sufficiently, I will not be as motivated. Said subconscious happiness affects my conscious reasoning without me consciously noticing.

Harry's brain tried to calculate the ramifications and implications of this and ran out of swap space.

this is very relatable

That's a partial focus.

particularly girls

why!?

i'd pick dust & youtube. I intrinsically value fairness

The YouTube is pure happiness. The sublimity is some happiness and some value. Therefore I choose the sublimity, but if it was "Wireheading vs. Youtube", or "Sublimity vs. seeing a motivational quote", I would choose the YouTube or the motivational quote, because I intrinsically value fairness.

Ok, yeah, I don't think the chances are much smaller than one in a million. But I do think the chances are not increased much by cryonics. Here, let me explain my reasoning. 

I assume that eventually, humanity will fall into a topia (Tammy's definition) or go extinct. Given that it does not go extinct, it will spend a very long amount of subjective time, possibly infinite, in said topia. In the event that this is some sort of brilliant paradise of maximum molecular fun where I can make stuff for eternity, we can probably reconstruct a person solely bas... (read more)