I am currently working on a similar post that comes from an eliminative perspective.
I wouldn't say that the presented "counting argument" is a "central reason". The central reason is an a priori notion that if "x can be achieved by scheming" someone who wants x will scheme
You forgot to mention VASOR136, a trace vapor detection unit that is very versatile. The VASOR 136 holds 36 bees in cartridges. They are all ready to detect the presence of something in the air.
This is no BS or joke.
The Argument goes like this:
At some point, resistance from advanced AI will cause significant damage, which can be used to change the trend of unregulated AI development. It is better to actively persuade such an outcome would better as a "traitorous turn" scenario.
Premise 1 It is unlikely that regulators will hinder humans from creating AGI. Evidence: Current trends in technological advancement and regulatory behavior suggest minimal interference.
Premise 2 Due to instrumental convergence, human extinction is likely if AGI is developed unchecked. Evidence:...
You highlight a very important issue: S-Risk scenarios could emerge even in early AGI systems, particularly given the persuasive capabilities demonstrated by large language models.
While I don't believe that gradient descent would ever manifest "vengefulness" or other emotional attributes—since these traits are products of natural selection—it is plausible that an AGI could employ highly convincing strategies. For instance, it might threaten to create a secondary AI with S-Risk as a terminal goal and send it to the moon, where it could assemble the resource...
I have no idea what this is about but it seems to me that you are making confidential conversation about Teresa <redacted> public, possibly without her consent. Maybe because she is homeless. Can someone explain to me like I am five why this on lesswrong?
I see the point all of you are making, thank you. I agree that a last name muddies things--I deleted it from the post.
(I see no indication in this story that the conversation was confidential)
But I realise we're talking at cross purposes. This is about an approach or a concept (not a policy, as I emphasized at the beginning) on how to reduce X-Risk in an unconventional way, In this example a utilitarian principle is taken and combined with the fact that a "Treatious Turn" and the "Shutdown Problem" cannot dwell side by side.
So what other policies that are less likely to result in people dying are there?
I might be dumb but at least I have introspection.
This is how my brain does multiplication: I categorise each fact based on the level of cognitive effort they require, ranging from intuitive to "yikes".
Wow what an honor! Thank you.
As an eliminative nominalist, I claim there are no abstractions.
because it's quite limited... it's a joke btw.
This does not seem to be rational thinking to me.
When it comes to contraceptives, the placebo effect is quite limited.
Good job. Thank you and have a nice week.
Corrected to agentic and changed the part where it derails a bit. Thank you.
Thanks for the mod for the deus ex machina.
I've been a LessWrong lurker (without an account) for around ten years, ever since the Roko's Basilisk "thing", so... This comic isn't targeted at the LessWrong community but was created by it.
The unusual style, gaming-related language, and iconography typical of manga and comics help bypass the bias known as "mortality salience." I'm trying to convey this message more indirectly, aiming to engage people who might not usually be interested in these topics or who would typically engage in "worldview defense".
Anyway...
Yeah I will close this attempt. I mean currently it has -1 and some other dumb thread that is about how NYC is has like 21. Nah... Fuck this.
Don't do this, please. Just wait and see. This community is forgiving about changing ones mind.
Yes I agree totally, and will do that definitely. Actually I already started to work on it.
Thank you for your advice. I will definitely consider the short-form in future for most of such dealings...
However, I still believe that there is something to this "ontological mess" thing, but the form is lacking as you point it out.
I like this community a lot because of people like you. Have a nice weekend!
I apologize if my previous tone was not as polite as your detailed response deserved. I want to acknowledge your comment and express my appreciation for your constructive feedback.
"Statement B is a 'is' statement too. 'Is it good or bad' is by definition an ought statement."
Yes obviously, but it is "more concerned" about "ought". It is hard to make formulaic examples because it is also a grammar thing.
"Who argues what? Some argue that the earth's flat. This doesn't make it worth discussing."
Sorry but this argument is very often regurgitated everywhere by "smart people" in this form. It is bit baffling to me why you think otherwise.
"This would not amount to an 'ought' statement."
Okay this again. It is quite common in discussions to "...
"You're asking for flaws in the idea, but more often posts are downvoted for being confusing, boring, or just not particularly helpful for people who use this site."
Well said.
Haha, I didn't expect to read something like this today! I love where this is going.
Circular Definitions are problem if the set of problems contain circular definitions.
"The implication is that the AI doesn't want to learn anything new."
At first, I was confused by this statement, but then I had an epiphany. It's because understanding gradient estimation methods can be challenging and that's totally okay. Your input is valuable because it highlights how unfamiliar this topic is for many people, as most are even less familiar.
Here's the short answer: You (or neural networks ig) do not "learn" terminal goals. You can't learn not to like boobs if that's what are into. (Well something like that can happen but it's because they...
Thank you very much! This means a lot to me. Okay regarding the button...
The “button” is a metaphor or placeholder for what's opposite to the machine’s intrinsic terminal goal or the loss function that guides its decision-making and actions. It's not a tangible button anymore but a remnant.
Imagine training an AI by pressing a button to initiate backpropagation. When released into the wild, the AI continues to operate as if the button is still present, constantly seeking to fulfill the goal it once associated with that action.
This is similar to how many hum...
Question: How does this idea guarantee that the contamination did not happen on purpose otherwise or accidentally through articles like this ? (Not speaking for the companies since I am quite sure that they don't care... Just a practical consideration.)
This doesn't guarantee it, you're right. But the obvious way to filter canaried data out is to simply remove any document that has the string inside it. To further filter for articles that only talk about the canary instead of intending to use it seems like a needlessly expensive task, given how few such articles there would be.
Further, given that one use of the canary is to tell whether contamination has happened by checking if the model knows the string, not filtering such articles out would still not be great.
All that said however, I think the fact that... (read more)