flandry39
5
16
flandry39 has not written any posts yet.
flandry39 has not written any posts yet.
I really liked your quote and remarks. So much so, that I made an edited version of them as a new post here: http://mflb.com/ai_alignment_1/d_250207_insufficient_paranoia_gld.html
The only general remarks that I want to make
are in regards to your question about
the model of 150 year long vaccine testing
on/over some sort of sample group and control group.
I notice that there is nothing exponential assumed
about this test object, and so therefore, at most,
the effects are probably multiplicative, if not linear.
Therefore, there are lots of questions about power dynamics
that we can overall safely ignore, as a simplification,
which is in marked contrast to anything involving ASI.
If we assume, as you requested, "no side effects" observed,
in any test group, for any of those things
that we happened to be thinking of, to even look for,
then for any linear system, that is probably "good enough".
But... (read 391 more words →)
> Humans do things in a monolithic way,
> not as "assemblies of discrete parts".
Organic human brains have multiple aspects.
Have you ever had more than one opinion?
Have you ever been severely depressed?
> If you are asking "can a powerful ASI prevent
> /all/ relevant classes of harm (to the organic)
> caused by its inherently artificial existence?",
> then I agree that the answer is probably "no".
> But then almost nothing can perfectly do that,
> so therefore your question becomes
> seemingly trivial and uninteresting.
The level of x-risk harm and consequence
potentially caused by even one single mistake
of your angelic super-powerful enabled ASI
is far from "trivial" and "uninteresting".
Even one single bad relevant mistake
can be an x-risk when ultimate... (read 386 more words →)
> Our ASI would use its superhuman capabilities
> to prevent any other ASIs from being built.
This feels like a "just so" fairy tale.
No matter what objection is raised,
the magic white knight always saves the day.
> Also, the ASI can just decide
> to turn itself into a monolith.
No more subsystems?
So we are to try to imagine
a complex learning machine
without any parts/components?
> Your same SNC reasoning could just well
> be applied to humans too.
No, not really, insofar as the power being
assumed and presumed afforded to the ASI
is very very much greater than that assumed
applicable to any mere mortal human.
Especially and exactly because the nature of ASI
is inherently artificial and thus, in key ways,
inherently incompatible... (read 430 more words →)
> Lets assume that a presumed aligned ASI
> chooses to spend only 20 years on Earth
> helping humanity in whatever various ways
> and it then (for sure!) destroys itself,
> so as to prevent a/any/the/all of the
> longer term SNC evolutionary concerns
> from being at all, in any way, relevant.
> What then?
I notice that it is probably harder for us
to assume that there is only exactly one ASI,
for if there were multiple, the chances that
one of them might not suicide, for whatever reason,
becomes its own class of significant concerns.
Lets leave that aside, without further discussion,
for now.
Similarly, if the ASI itself
is not fully and absolutely monolithic --
if it has any sub-systems or components
which are... (read 366 more words →)
So as to save space herein, my complete reply is at http://mflb.com/2476
Included for your convenience below are just a few (much shortened) highlight excerpts of the added new content.
> Are you saying "there are good theoretical reasons
> to reasonably think that ASI cannot 100% predict
> all future outcomes"?
> Does that sound like a fair summary?
The re-phrased version of the quote added
these two qualifiers: "100%" and "all".
Adding these has the net effect
that the modified claim is irrelevant,
for the reasons you (correctly) stated in your reply,
insofar as we do not actually need 100% prediction,
nor do we need to predict absolutely all things,
nor does it matter if it takes infinitely long.
We only need to predict... (read 515 more words →)
Noticing that a number of these posts are already very long, and rather than take up space here, I wrote up some of my questions, and a few clarification notes regarding SNC in response to the above remarks of Dakara, at [this link](http://mflb.com/ai_alignment_1/d_250126_snc_redox_gld.html).
Simplified Claim: that an AGI is 'not-aligned' *if* its continued existence for sure eventually results in changes to all of this planets habitable zones that are so far outside the ranges any existing mammals could survive in, that the human race itself (along with most of the other planetary life) is prematurely forced to go extinct.
Can this definition of 'non-alignment' be formalized sufficiently well so that a claim 'It is impossible to align AGI with human interests' can be well supported, with reasonable reasons, logic, argument, etc?
The term 'exist' as in "assert X exists in domain Y" as being either true or false is a formal notion. Similar can be done for... (read 2133 more words →)
> The summary that Will just posted posits in its own title that alignment is overall plausible "even ASI alignment might not be enough". Since the central claim is that "even if we align ASI, it will still go wrong", I can operate on the premise of an aligned ASI.
The title is a statement of outcome -- not the primary central claim. The central claim of the summary is this: That each (all) ASI is/are in an attraction basin, where they are all irresistibly pulled towards causing unsafe conditions over time.
Note there is no requirement for there to be presumed some (any) kind of prior ASI alignment for Will to make the overall summary points 1 thru 9. The summary is... (read more)
There are a lot of issues with the article cited above. Due to the need for more specific text formatting, I wrote up my notes, comments, and objections here:
http://mflb.com/ai_alignment_1/d_250206_asi_policies_gld.html