All of Pee Doom's Comments + Replies

How do we do this without falling into the Crab Bucket problem AKA Heckler's Veto, which is definitely a thing that exists and is exacerbated by these concerns in EA-land? "Don't do risky things" equivocates into "don't do things".

3romeostevensit
Maybe the person hired needs to have good scores on a prediction market such that people trust them to be well calibrated.
3Vladimir_Nesov
Some things are best avoided entirely when you take their risks into account, some become worthwhile only if you manage their risks instead of denying their existence even to yourself. But even when denying risks gives positive outcomes in expectation, adequately managing those risks is even better. Unless society harms the project for acknowledging some risks, which it occasionally does. In which case managing them without acknowledgement (which might require magic cognitive powers) is in tension with acknowledging them despite the expected damage from doing so.

A medieval peasant would very much disagree with that sentence, if they were suddenly thrust into a modern grocery store. I think they would say the physical reality around them changed to a pretty magical-seeming degree.

 

They would still understand the concept of paying money for food. The grocery store is pretty amazing but  it's fundamentally the same transaction as the village market. I think the burden of proof is on people claiming that money will be 'done away with' because 'post-scarcity', when there will always be economic scarcity. It m... (read more)

Nitpicking a particular topic of interest to me:

Power/money/being-the-head-of-OpenAI doesn't do anything post-singularity.

It obviously does?

I am very confused why people make claims in this genre. "When the Singularity happens, this (money, conflict, the problems I'm experiencing) won't be a problem anymore."

This mostly strikes me as magical, far-mode thinking. It's like people have an afterlife-shaped hole after losing religion. The specific, real reality in front of you won't magically suddenly change after an Intelligence Explosion and assuming we're al... (read more)

2Nicholas / Heather Kross
I mean... yeah? Some things I think would cause people to disagree: * They think a friendly-AGI-run society would have some use for money, conflict, etc. I'd say the onus is on them to explain why we would need those things in such a society. * They think a good "singularity" would not be particularly "weird" or sci-fi looking, which ignores the evidence of technological development throughout history. I think this is what the "The specific, real reality in front of you" sentence is about. A medieval peasant would very much disagree with that sentence, if they were suddenly thrust into a modern grocery store. I think they would say the physical reality around them changed to a pretty magical-seeming degree. * Any/all of the above, but applied to a harmful singularity. (E.g. thinking that an unfriendly AGI could not kill everyone, rendering their previous problems irrelevant.) This seems to be a combo of the absurdity heuristic and trying to "psychoanalyze your way to the truth". Just because something sounds kind of like some elements of some religions, does not make it automatically false. (I'd be less antsy about this if this was a layperson's comment in some reddit thread, but this is a LessWrong comment on an AI alignment researcher's post. I did not to see this sort of thing in this place at this time.)
8O O
Money and power won't matter as much, but status within your social "tribe" will be probably one of the most important things to most. For example, being good at video games, sports, getting others to follow your ideas, etc. 

I will keep harping on that more people should try starting (public benefit) corporations instead of nonprofits. At least, give it five minutes' thought. Especially if handwaves impact markets something something. This should be in their Overton Window, but it might not be because they automatically assume "doing good => charity => nonprofit". Corporations are the standard procedure for how effective helpful things are done in the world; they are RLHF'd by the need to acquire profit by providing real value to customers, reducing surfacce area for bul... (read more)

My chief guess for why this happens is people don't realize it's an option or understand the distinction, and it isn't in their skillset or area of interest so they don't dig deep enough to find out.

Actually, wow, that "people" sure sounds like I'm talking about someone else. Hi, I personally didn't have the phrase "public benefit corporation" cached in my head and I'm not actually sure what the distinction between that and a nonprofit is. That's not because it's totally irrelevant to my interests either. I've talked with two or three people over the last ... (read more)

0SebastianG
Forming a nonprofit is not that difficult. It's like four extra hours of work to get the 501c3 status and a decent time delay of several months. Having someone else to fill out the 990 for you is nice, though!
4Elizabeth
do you know any references people could use to investigate more?
7the gears to ascension
this is exactly why I would disagree with this suggestion.

The wifi hacking also immediately struck me as reminiscent of paranoid psychosis. Though a significant amount of psychosis-like things are apparently downstream of childhood trauma, including sexual abuse, but I forget the numbers on this.

3green_leaf
How hard is it to hack somebody's wifi? Also, a traumatized person attributing a seemingly hacked wifi to their serious abuser doesn't need to mean any mental illness.
Roko3219

She could also have some real trauma. Note that it doesn't have to be the thing that is claimed. Once we are in the realm of a mentally ill person's delusions (and I have seen this up close), the sky really is the limit.

I've worried about it's sustainability, but do you think it's been a good path for you?

Cutting out bird and seafood products (ameliatarianism) is definitely more sustainable for me. I'm very confused why you would think it's less sustainable than, uh, 'cold turkey' veganism. "Just avoid chicken/eggs" (since I don't like seafood or the other types of bird meat products) is way easier than "avoid all meat, also milk, also cheese".

1Tristan Williams
What Elizabeth had to say here is broadly right. See my comment above, for some more in depth reasoning as to why I think the opposite may be true, but basically I think that the sort of loving relationship formed with other animals that I imagine as the thing that holds together commitment over a long period of time, over a large range of hard circumstances, is tricky to create when you don't go full on. I have no idea what's sustainable for you though, and want to emphasize that whatever works to reduce is something I'm happy with, so I'm quite glad for your ameliatarian addition.  I'm also trying to update my views here, so can I ask for how long you've been on a veg diet? And if you predict any changes in the near future? 
7Elizabeth
My sense is that different people struggle with staying on a suffering-reducing diet for different reasons, and they have different solutions. Some people do need a commitment to a greater principle to make it work, and they typical mind that other people can’t (but aren’t wrong that people tend to overestimate themselves). Some people really need a little bit of animal nutrition but stop when that need is filled, and it’s not a slippery slope for them[1]and maybe miss that other people can’t stop where they can, although this group tends to be less evangelical so it causes fewer problems.. If the general conversation around ethics and nutrition were in a better place, I think it would be useful to look at how much of “veganism as a hard line” is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and what new equilibriums could be created. Does telling people “if you cross this line once you’ll inevitably slide into full blow carnism” make it more likely? Could advocates create a new hard line that gave people strength but had space for people for whom the trade-offs of total abstention are too hard? Or maybe not-even-once is the best line to hold, and does more good on net even if it drives some people away.  I don’t feel like I can be in that conversation, for a lot of reasons. But I hope it happens   1. ^ and maybe miss that other people can’t stop where they can, although this group tends to be less evangelical so it causes fewer problems.
3Stephen Bennett
I took Tristan to be using "sustainability" in the sense of "lessened environmental impact", not "requiring little willpower"

Similar for me. I was very suspicious at first that the first message was a Scam and if I clicked I would blow up the website or something tricksy. Then with the second message I thought it might be customized to test my chosen virtue, "resisting social pressure", so I didn't click it.

"You’ve never experienced bliss, and so you’re frantically trying to patch everything up and pin it all together and screw the universe up so that it's fixed." - Alan Watts

People in MIRI/CFAR/LessWrong ~actively resisted the idea of a marketing push optimized more along dimensions of mass persuadability, for better or worse. One reason is that there is inertia once you've built a mass movement with MoPs who can't dialogue like on this site. My straw model is they think "we just need to produce technical insights and communicate them" and other comms work is an opportunity cost or creates/incentivizes some kind of epistemic trap.

And this is the exact type of statement where I would expect this coincidence to pop up. Both are a reasonable number of days for bureaucracy to take, the large discrepancy between them is required for the complaint in the tweet to happen in the first place, and I would expect the number of days to be very specific rather than a round number.

 

I agree with this. Although I will note people are claiming it actually took 56 (IIRC) days for them to get back to him.

I think it's an entirely sensible inference in the world where it is true that it was intentional, albeit a highly reductive description of the actual psychological reality of someone who holds those beliefs enough to output such symbols. In that world, he could also be paying lipservice to pander or be trolling.

group homes (in adulthood as a long term situation)

People living together in group homes (as extended families) used to be the norm? The weird thing is how isolated and individualist we've become. I would argue that group houses where individual adults join up together are preserving some aspect of traditional social arrangement where people live closely, but maybe you would argue that this is not the same as an extended family or the lifelong kinship networks of a village.

Has the "AI Safety"-washing grift accelerated? https://www.lakera.ai/momentum

4Mitchell_Porter
Are you referring to "AI safety" consultants who will certify the safety of their clients' AI projects? 

Also, when I actually think about what it would be like to have a Plan That I Truly Believe In, it doesn't really seem hard to get it on the desk of The Important Stakeholders (or someone who knows someone who talks to The Important Stakeholders).

 

I think you can scream a Good Plan from the rooftops and often few will listen. See: Covid in January-February 2020.

Math camps are not sufficient to solve civilization's problems.

Fascinating. Way, way more examples and empirical treatment of rituals would help me understand your case better.

Much appreciated! I am working on a few "case studies" but I should probably add one or a few here already.

Answer by Pee Doom60

Me, sitting on a throne, as your entirely benevolent world dictator. Oh, how did I get there? Someone posted on LessWrong and I followed their blueprint!

The story had me for most of it but I'm pretty disappointed by the very end. Protagonist seems to have unequivocally become the bad guy at that point. I don't think I would be confident enough in my understanding of consciousness to do that until I spent a lot more time understanding the situation, assuming it wasn't a self-defense emergency by that point. I get being angry but remaining in reflexively unthinking action hero mode rather than administering a battery of Turing Tests just seems wildly uncalled for. Maybe it's supposed to read as morally ambiguous, but like many readers here I am biased towards the Drangerian perspective and find the dilemma unsympathetic.

2Alex Beyman
Rarely do I get such insightful feedback but I appreciate when I do. It's so hard to step outside of myself, I really value the opportunity to see my thoughts reflected back at me through other lenses than the one I see the world through. I suppose I imagined the obsolete tech would leave little doubt that the Sidekicks aren't sentient, but the story also sort of makes the opposite case throughout when it talks about how personality is built up by external influences. I want the reader to be undecided by the end and it seems I can't have that cake and eat it too (have the protag be the good guy). Thanks again and Merry Christmas

One possible approach to fixing this is to try to get wayyyy more empirical, and try to produce proof-of-concept implementations of various adversaries we are worried we might face in the future. My analogy would be, there’s a world of difference between speculating about the bogey monster and producing a grainy photo of the bogey monster; the second can at least maaaaaybe be discussed with skeptical people, whereas the first cannot (productively) be.

Anyway, that’s a long-winded way of saying, it seemed to me that it might be useful to implement a treacher

... (read more)
6MadHatter
I had been thinking about it in terms of capabilities research - is this likely to lead to capabilities advancements? My gut says that it is highly unlikely for such a toy model to advance capabilities. The analogy to gain of function research does give me pause, though. I will have to think about what that way of thinking about it suggests. My first thought I guess is that code is a little bit like a virus these days in terms of its ability to propagate itself - anything I post on colab could theoretically find its way into a Copilot-esque service (internal or external) from Google, and thence fragments of it could wind up in various programs written by people using such a service, and so on and so on. Which is a little bit scary I suppose, if I'm intentionally implementing tiny fragments of something scary. Oof.

You mentioned a specific Amazon price point that I found surprisingly low and is cheap enough to meaningfully affect strategic plans. The cheapest pasta I've seen is on WebstaurantStore but the shipping doubles the cost to $2/lb approximately. Did you have a link for the $200/year product(s)?

2Lao Mein
https://www.amazon.com/Royal-Basmati-Rice-15-Pound-Bag/dp/B00I330QEQ https://www.amazon.com/Dried-Navy-Small-White-Beans/dp/B00BXM6GFC https://www.webstaurantstore.com/riceland-white-long-grain-rice-50-lb/112WHTLG50.html   These are a bit more than $1 per pound for Amazon and half that for the bulk supplier. Dried rice is around 3700 calories per kg, and even a fit adult male on bed rest only needs around 1500 a day (I think). So 300 pounds should be enough for a year. My math was a bit off since I confused pounds for kilograms initially, haha.

What's the ~$200 food item you saw that would last a person a year, can you link?

(Edit: I see a 30-day container for about $200. It seems to me that $200 buys a month's worth, not a year's worth?)

2Lao Mein
Bulk rice and beans in vacuum-sealed bags, plus multivitamins. You won't be having fun, but you'll survive the year. It's pretty easy to stockpile if you're going to be eating those anyways. The main takeaway should be to buy non-perishables you normally consume in bulk when you think there is an elevated risk of nuclear war and draw down those provisions when you think the risk has passed. This means that the cost of preparing for nuclear war is the interest you would otherwise earn on <$500, which is pocket change per year. The needed storage space for a person-year of food and water is also under a cubic meter, so that shouldn't be too much of a concern.

I consider it collectively important that alignment researchers and their +1s survive, as well as other x-risk researchers and probably other cause areas.

So if there's a 1% yearly risk of nuclear apocalypse

Some think the number is much higher than priors due to current events. You're also not factoring in that that yearly percentage adds up, and a lot of preparations are a one-off action that benefits future you (assuming you don't dig into your backup food).

1Martin Randall
The 1% number was intended to be illustrative, not definitive. I'm not a nuclear risk expert. The QALY figure may also vary. A $40/yr cost could be a $400 investment that depreciates over ten years. In that case I would value it based on the projected risk over ten years. I'm not seeing additional value in "nuclear dignity points" above these admittedly hard-to-calculate figures. To preserve x-risk research during civilizational collapse I think attempts to preserve information and insights would perform better than attempting to preserve individual researchers, especially since it could be done in parallel with preserving other information that aids recovery.

It felt to me like there's too much for my taste. My impression was that you guys were optimizing for it being about AI content, somewhat related to the % of people involved at Lightcone coworking being AI researchers vs other subjects.

Interesting summary and interpretation of a speech outlining Putin's intentions, "The End of Western Hegemony is INEVITABLE":

This is a reproduction of my live Twitter summary/translation of Vladimir Putin's speech:

I wish every single person in the West would listen to Putin's speech. Obviously, that won't happen so let me summarise as a professional translator for 10+ years. He states, as he has done from the outset, what his intentions and complaints are in the plainest terms possible.

Setting aside his brief comments on the recent "referendums", he spends

... (read more)
3Mitchell_Porter
What I think is striking about this speech, is the comprehensiveness with which it portrays the western civilization as different, evil, and intolerable. The West is a power-hungry, post-human Moloch that seeks to subvert and devour anything different. Ranged against it are all the traditional civilizations of the world, characterized by religion, sovereignty, and family values, and Russia volunteers to be the armory of the resistance. 
3David Johnston
What do you see as the significance of this? I think I would have been surprised if Putin talked mostly about Ukraine - it’s more respectable to be struggling vs the west than vs a smaller, poorer neighbour. Compare to “war on terror” vs “war on Afghanistan”. Given the above, it doesn’t seem particularly notable that he insults the west. I also don’t see escalation as more likely if he declares “the west” to be the prime enemy vs “NATO”; perhaps less, actually, because “the west” seems more of a rhetorical opponent while you could actually fight against NATO with bombs if you really wanted to.
3tailcalled
Wait, does Putin not consider Germany part of "The West"? If not Germany, then who, beyond the US?

when aggression with conventional weapons greatly endangers Russia's existence

Putin could interpret an attack on its newly annexed territories as "greatly endangering Russia's existence". He seems to be generating rhetoric in that direction.

Pee Doom1310

Russia's state faces an existential threat.

The implication is that attacks on the territories it is annexing are interpretable as an existential threat.

2birdy
My appliance was submitted, I mentioned you pointed me to it. Thanks a lot!
2Gunnar_Zarncke
I'm not sure what the relation is. That seems to predict revenue from startup financials.

Have you looked at the Atlas Fellowship, btw?

4birdy
No, until I googled it I never heard of it before. Thank you for pointing it out! I'm quite fascinated, now, I'd appreciate if you could tell me some more about it. 

The presence of pathogens in an environment (including the so-called Covid-19 coronavirus [53]) isn't the prime factor whether people become ill.

Oh, huh. How does that explain the Black Plague, smallpox, ebola, HIV?

"...What do you do with this impossible challenge?

First, we assume that you don't actually say "That's impossible!" and give up a la Luke Skywalker.  You haven't run away.

Why not?  Maybe you've learned to override the reflex of running away.  Or maybe they're going to shoot your daughter if you fail.  We suppose that you want to win, not try—that something is at stake that matters to you, even if it's just your own pride.  (Pride is an underrated sin.)

Will you call upon the virtue of tsuyoku naritai?  But even if you become st

... (read more)
7orthonormal
Fighting is different from trying. To fight harder for X is more externally verifiable than to try harder for X.  It's one thing to acknowledge that the game appears to be unwinnable. It's another thing to fight any less hard on that account.

Noting that the more real, second-order disaster resulting from Chernobyl may have been less usage of nuclear power (assuming that had an influence on antinuclear sentiment). Likewise, I'm guessing the Challenger disaster had a negative influence on the U.S. space program. Covid lockdowns also have this quality of not tracking the cost-benefit of their continuation. Human reactions to disasters can be worse than the disasters themselves, especially if the costs of those reactions are hidden. I don't know how this translates to AI safety but it merits thought. 

1Carlos Ramirez
Eh. We can afford to take things slow. What you describe are barely costs.

“He has half the deed done who has made a beginning.”
– Horace

This happens intergenerationally as parents forget to alert their children to the actual reasons for things. Having observed this happen with millenials, I am scared of what we are all collectively missing because older generations literally just forgot to tell us.

What do you think we are missing?

A crucial consideration for why destroying restaurant business is good: factory farming.

Hey Ron, I am working on my own version of this (inspired by this Sequence), and would love to get your advice! Right now I am focusing on crowdfunding via dominant assurance contracts on Ethereum.

How did you / would you verify that someone did something? What are specific examples of that happening for different actions? What kinds of evidence can be provided? I have a fuzzy sense of what this looks like right now. The closest sites I can think of just off the top of my head that involve verification are CommitLock (which I made a successful $1000 commitm... (read more)

1Jordan Braunstein
DonyChristie, I'm also working on something similar!  I've got a landing page at Spartacus.app No blockchain element right now.  I'd love to chat.

I am very interested in practicing steelmanning/Ideological Turing Test with people of any skill level. I have only done it once conversationally and it felt great. I'm sure we can find things to disagree about. You can book a call here.

I’ve mentioned previously that I’ve been digging into a pocket of human knowledge in pursuit of explanations for the success of the traditional Chinese businessman. The hope I have is that some of these explanations are directly applicable to my practice.
Here’s my current bet: I think one can get better at trial and error, and that the body of work around instrumental rationality hold some clues as to how you can get better.
I’ve argued that the successful Chinese businessmen are probably the ones who are better at trial a
... (read more)

Any updates on this in the past six months?

2Long try
A few, but overall it doesn't change very much.

Mati, would you be interested in having a friendly and open (anti-)debate on here (as a new post) about the value of open information, both for life extension purposes and else (such as Facebook group moderation)? I really support the idea of lifelogging for various purposes such as life extension but have a strong disagreement with the general stance of universal access to information as more-or-less always being a public good.

1Mati_Roy
Meta: This isn't really related to the above comment, so might be better to start a new comment in my shortform next time. Object: I don't want to argue about open information in general for now. I might be open to discussing something more specific and directly actionable, especially if we haven't done so yet and you think it's important. It doesn't currently seem to me that relevant to put one's information public for life extension purposes given you can just backup the information in private, in case you were implying or thinking that. I also don't (at least currently and in the past) advocate for universal access to information in case you were implying or thinking that.

Sure thing. What would you recommend for learning management?

(I count that as an answer to my other recent question too.)

Warning: TVTropes links

When should I outsource something I'm bad at vs leveling up at that skill?

How would you instruct a virtual assistant to help you with scheduling your day/week/etc?

2Raemon
The short answer is "it turns out making use of an assistant is a surprisingly high-skill task, which requires a fair amount of initial investment to understand which sort of things are easy to outsource and which are not, and how to effectively outsource them."

Great post! It's like the "what if an alien took control of you" exercise but feels more playful and game-y. I started a Google doc to plan the month of April from Gurgeh's perspective.

See also: Outside.

Why does CHAI exclude people who don't have a near-perfect GPA? This doesn't seem like a good way to maximize the amount of alignment work being done. High GPA won't save the world and in fact selects for obedience to authority and years of status competition, leading to poor mental health to do work in, decreasing the total amount of cognitive resources being thrown at the problem.

(Hypothesis 1: "Yes, this is first-order bad but the second-order effect is we have one institutionally prestigious organization, and we need to say we have ... (read more)

No, there has barely been any testing. I think it's more like 200-1000 cases.

Load More