LESSWRONG
LW

All of subconvergence's Comments + Replies

Could a single alien message destroy us?
subconvergence81

Any pointers on how it would even be possible for an alien civilisation to transmit complex instructions that could be deciphered?

Given a radio signal, I see how you could determine that it’s not natural, and then what?

Reply
4RHollerith
If the alien civilization is no more advanced than we are, then it probably cannot send us a message that would have a drastic effect on us. But if the aliens can create powerful AI, they can just send that. Specifically, the alien message might start with the first 50 primes, followed by a computer program that finds prime numbers -- written in some simple programming language. That is followed by a few more simple programs in the same programming language. Then comes the powerful AI (as a computer program in the same simple programming language). There are 100s of 1000s of people with the skills to use the examples in the first part of the message to get the AI in the second part of the message running on a computer here on Earth. 12 hours after such an alien message is published worldwide here on Earth, I expect that dozens of people would have the powerful AI running at good efficiency on their PCs. Obviously, I would prefer for SETI to retract their policy of publishing any alien message they might receive. One simple program that is particularly illuminating for specifying a programming language is a simple interpreter for the same language: educational materials often call such a metacircular evaluator. Here is one example, but there are many. That example of course contains a lot of English prose intended to help the student understand the code. But there are 100s of 1000s of people who don't need the English prose: the code is probably all information they would need to get any program written in the same programming language running at good efficiency on their PC. The only reason I need the qualifier "probably" in the previous sentence is that there is a chance that a single program won't be enough: one or 2 more simple "sample" programs, e.g., for generating the Fibonacci sequence, might be required. Keep in mind that the aliens are trying to make it as easy as possible for as many recipients as possible to run their code performantly. Can the humans
Why I don't believe in doom
subconvergence60

I think the plan you propose cannot work in any meaningful way. Some of the steps are uncertain, and some depends on the capacity of the given AGI. They can still be argued for convincingly.

However, the current industrial production is very far from being sufficiently automated to allow the AGI to do anything other than shut off when the power runs out after step 14. 

To me, some actual possibilities are:

  1. political "enslavement" (taking many possible forms) which would make humans work for the AGI for an arbitrary long period of time (10 years, 100 year
... (read more)
Reply
1localdeity
Maybe.  I don't really know.  Things I would say: * There are lots of manufacturing facilities, which are to some degree automated.  If the humans are gone and they haven't burned down the facilities, then the AGI can send in weak manual-manipulation robots to make use of what's there. * There would probably also be lots of partly-manufactured machines (including cars), where most of the hardest steps are already done—maybe all that's left is screwing in parts or something, meant to be done by human factory workers that aren't particularly strong. * I imagine all the AGI has to do is assemble one strong, highly dexterous robot, which it can then use to make more and bootstrap its industrial capabilities. * Given that the AGI can hack roughly everything, it would know a great deal about the location and capabilities of manufacturing facilities and robots and the components they assembled.  If there is a plan that can be made along the above lines, it would know very well how to do it and how feasible it was. * Regarding power, the AGI just needs enough to run the above bootstrapping.  Even if we assume all centralized power plants are destroyed... Once most people are dead, the AGI can forage in the city for gas generators; use the gas that's already in cars, and the charge that's left in the electric cars; solar panels on people's roofs; private battery installations like Tesla Powerwalls; and so on.  (Also, if it was trying this in lots of cities at once, it's very unlikely that all centralized power would be offline in all cities.)  And its foraging abilities will improve as it makes stronger, more dexterous robots, which eventually would be able to repair the power grid or construct a new one.
Your Dog is Even Smarter Than You Think
subconvergence*270

I think both of us made our arguments clear, so instead of answering point by point, let me give a quick holistic response that should summarize what I think, and provide a general interesting point of view on animal cognition.

(Maybe you know about the following, but I think it is interesting enough by itself to be presented here to other people)

Corvidae are very intelligent birds. There's ton of evidence of that. You can read studies that test how they can solve problems, you can watch tons of youtube videos showing them interact with their settings and w... (read more)

Reply
2StyleOfDog
I think we're mostly in agreement, and I'm not disputing that it pays to be careful when it comes to animal cognition. I'd say again that I think it's a meta-rational skill to see the patterns of what is likely to work and what isn't, and this kind of stuff is near-impossible to communicate well. I've read about the car-nutracker thing somewhere, but without the null result from research. If you had asked me to bet I'd say it would be unlikely to work. But it's illustrative that we both still agree that corvids are smart and there's a ton of evidence for it. We just don't know the exact ways and forms, and that's how I feel about the dog thing. There's something there but we need to actually study it to know the exact shape and form. I don't think it will be niche because it's already not niche, considering the massive viewership. But your 1% figure sounds about right as a higher bound, given the sheer number of dog owners, the amount of work required and people's low desire to train their pets. A cursory google search says 4% of US dog owners take a training class, so serious button use will have to be a fraction of that.
Your Dog is Even Smarter Than You Think
subconvergence90

Sorry for over-reacting to what I perceived as essentially a curated list of youtube videos with no real context. I made a probably more substantial comment as an answer to the OP.

Reply
0anon_standards
FWIW, I do not think you over-reacted, nor do I think I agree with any of the criticisms of the comment above.
Your Dog is Even Smarter Than You Think
subconvergence230

Thanks for responding, and also for illustrating all the issues I have in your post in a compressed way. Basically, what you're saying is:

  1. Something new and exciting is happening
  2. There's not a lot of evidence BUT

I think this community should be able to see the issue there. (To also be polemical, occultism was also something that was new and exciting in the 19th century, with many intellectual of their time spending their evening around a turntable, most of them also in good faith when they reported paranormal activity.)

1. is being conditioned on something re... (read more)

Reply
StyleOfDog330
  • I agree I should've summarized the study methodology in the article. For some reason I expected people to click the links and actually read and watch everything (this is not a knock on anyone, one shouldn't expect that when writing articles).
  • There is a lot of evidence, it's just weak and easy to misinterpret, and it's in the form of youtube vids, which goes against aesthetic sensibilities of what "evidence" looks like. If you want to have a holistic picture, you'll have to actually watch a lot of them, I'm sorry.
  • I think it's quite obvious that the evide
... (read more)
Reply
1Slider
Being interested in the lethality of cigarettes or the likelyhood of climate change would also deal in being interedsted in issues where high-scrutinity or high social status stances are not available. I do think that people have an easier time reading a bit too much into it because the buttons are so legible for humans. The buttons were developed for communication needds for deaf people. Would not pressing buttons in that cotext qualify as peech? What is the relevant difference to make that not apply there? I am wondering whether this is a too short conversation. This would probably be of good length. To me it feels there is a discernible difference in the level of vividity that the dog follows on the stories. Also On taht linked place the dog is "confused" by a new word which to me reads as a behaviour about actively trying to keep on board with the story and adaptation to expand vocabulary by talking (if not by definition which the human tries to hand over). To my underdstanding the core vocabulary needs to be bootstrapped by reinforcdement anyway so that doesn't make it a disqualifying attribute. YOu can't learn chinese with only the help of a dictionary in chinese. But until the dogs have a primary language they can not keep developing their language skills by simply talking, it needs to link to their "actual" life. The interesting thing about K'eyush being commanded around is that it is more like a negotiation. For a command the dog can react by complying, saying "no" or saying "why". And when they say "why" then giving an explanation can give compliance without repeating the command (but then the dog can also think the reasoning is a rubbish one): I do wonder on what basis judging whether other humans are talking a language the observer doesn't understand vs speaking gibberish. And when tourists are aboard don't they use "bag-of-word" kind of communication a lot? But also doesn't that actually serve for the genuine thing? 
Your Dog is Even Smarter Than You Think
subconvergence51

Thanks for the precision, I was unaware of that. I still think this post is of very limited value nonetheless.

Reply
Your Dog is Even Smarter Than You Think
subconvergence201

The fact that this post was curated, and raised so little concern in the comments is worrying.

The author expresses himself maniacally in a mix of meme-speak and LW-lingo. The main claim is never really clarified*, but is presented as if it were, and in an outrageous way. There is no evidence besides YouTube videos**. I have no idea what is going on, and don’t even know where to start.

Comparative cognition is a real scientific field. If you’re interested in the cognitive abilities of non-human animals, and how they compare with the abilities of other specie... (read more)

Reply
Rob Bensinger28-1

It sounds to me like you're thinking of curated as 'vetted' or 'confident', while Ray is thinking of it more as 'representing a direction we want to see LW move in more' (including 'this topic seems neglected here, I'd like to see it get more attention').

It's the difference between 'curation is like publishing a non-replication-crisis-y journal article or encyclopedia article, a durable summary of humanity's knowledge we can call back to and base further conclusions on', versus 'curation is like sending out an email to a private researcher mailing list you run "hey, I'd love to see more discussion here in the vein of X"'.

Reply
TurnTrout340

Really? The main claim is presented "in an outrageous way"? 

I can imagine reading the post and being unconvinced by the evidence presented. In fact, that was my reaction (although I haven't watched the videos yet). But... being outraged? 

Posts should not make large, unsupported claims, and criticism should not be hyperbolic. Here is what I have learned from your critique:

  • You think that StyleOfDog writes "maniacally" and uses "meme-speak" too much.
    • Unclear why I should care. Not my favorite style of writing, but I understood what they were trying t
... (read more)
Reply
StyleOfDog220

Plenty of concern was raised in the comments, have you gone through all of them and all the replies?

I'm aware of comparative cognition, the people posting the pet videos are participating in ongoing research at the Comparative Cognition Lab at the University of California, San Diego. They give a description of their methodology, but the status updates appear hidden to ensure integrity of the data.

Short recap of the comments: This is a very new thing, early-stage science often looks like messing around, so don't expect lots of rigor so early. If they had a ... (read more)

Reply