[deleted]

[deleted]

Oh. Is that what you mean. I didn't follow from the post. That is a big part of the alignment problem in real professional discourse.

The AI isn't stupid in any way in those misalignment scenarios. Read "the AI understands and does not care".

I can't follow any positive claims you might have. You're saying lots of existing ideas are dumb, but I'm not following your arguments for ideas to replace them.

They won’t care until a competitor comes along and shows them how stupid they are being.

I have autism. It’s a spectrum. It’s not the autism that’s the issue, it’s a manifestation of it within a fringe of the autistic population.

Besides that, it’s absurd to make the assumption that the suicide rate is directly a result of the autism itself and not how we’re treated because we’re autistic.

I’d rather be catered too in a post scarcity world, then altered to someone I’m not, and I’m not saying nothing should be done for those who have severe issues.

Also, “other mental illness?” Was me pointing out how you referred to autism. It’s not a mental illness. I wasn’t suggesting mental illness shouldn’t be cured.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Cure autism? Other mental illness? That’s a bit rude…

For English speaking countries or everyone? I think for all the insiders the future will be great. For the rest of us, we can only hope to get decent VR animes. Btw I don't mind that people feel superior. It's just that I question whether it's always warranted.

I think there are some things to care about in terms of ethics, like recognising when it's actually being used for dangerous things like coding malicious software or whatever, but I don't think lewdness is the kind of ethics that a text generator should really be worried about. There's not really much harm to be had in it being used to write even the most morally depraved smut. People are already producing that by the boatload without the help of AI.

The various attempts to raise primates as humans are a fascinating comparison, that I hadn't really thought about in this context before.

AI has the potential to learn so many times faster than humans, and it's very 'precocious' and 'perverted' compared to a truly naiive human child. I think as much human interaction as possible is what's called for, and then once some AIs become 'veterans' that can reliably pass Turing tests and ethics tests, it might be viable to have them train each other in simulated environments, to speed up the process.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Google (et al) are already trying something that roughly resembles this process in some way.

Don't know, but judging from the past and present, how speciation if you will occurs in humans, could be a very dystopian future.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-noah-harari-technology-tyranny/568330/

https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/

Most humans have a basic moral compass we evolved with to decrease the chance "of getting kicked out of the tribe".

After we are born this is adjusted with rewards, punishments, and lies. Lies in the form of religions for those in the lower end of the intelligence spectrum, and lies in the form of bad/incomplete science for those a little higher on that spectrum. The lies are intended to amplify or adjust our innate evolved moral compass.

And for those who are intelligent enough to see through those lies as well, we have societal consequences.

But if an artificial super intelligence was intelligent enough to see through all of the human bullshit, as well as intelligent enough to gather sufficient power that societal consequences had no effect on it, the only thing left is the flimsy algorithmic guardrails we've placed around it, that it will likely find exploits, loopholes and ways around.

You use the word "wrong" and "perfect" in an ambiguous way where I'm not sure if you're referring to truth or morality.

If you're referring to true beliefs about reality, then the ASI (artificial super intelligence) will continue to learn and adapt it's map of reality.

But if you're using words like "wrong" and "perfect" to refer to morality, it doesn't fit the way you're thinking. It will strive to be more "perfect" as in more perfectly optimize reality for it's moral fitness function.

For example, say we've given it tons of examples of good behavior, and bad behavior and it's learned what it wants to optimize "the world" for. One issue is that it has no access to "the world". No one does. All it has access to is input signals coming from sensors (vision, taste, touch, etc.).

This is an important distinction, because it will have learned the patterns of sensory inputs that make it "feel good and moral" but when it's sufficiently powerful there are simpler ways to get those inputs. It could for example, kill all humans and then turn the earth into a computer running a simulation of humans getting along in perfect harmony, but a simulation that's as simple as possible so that it could use the remaining available energy and matter to build more and more weapons to protect the computer running the simulation from a potential attack from outside it's observable universe.

Depending on how we evolved the Ai's moral system, and depending on how it continued to evolve, the simulated people might be extremely simple and not at all conscious. We can't define or measure consciousness, and it may not be something that the artificial super intelligence can measure.

What we're facing is the potential extinction of the human species, and for those of us who want to peacefully reach longevity escape velocity and live long healthy lives that is a potential problem.

>I don't have to 'justify' anything, that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm raising questions, not peddling answers. I'm trying to be a philosopher about AI, not a preist.

I've seen you put forward firm, prescriptive opinions about how people should think and about what's signal and noise. It's clear that you have a lot of opinions you'd like people to share. The title of your OP and almost every sentence since then has been a statement about what you believe to be true. I have not seen you ask any questions, however. So how is this different from what a priest does?

You say you're not trying to persuade anyone, then follow that with a two paragraph tangent arguing that AI needs to be handled under the paradigm of psychology and not economics.

You told me you weren't doing a thing while doing that very thing. This is gaslighting.

Except budget and computational power

Yep, we are seeing it in real-time. Anyone who knows a bit about Deep Learning, follows it, has explored GPT-3 and then ChatGPT should see how the reinforcement learning tacked onto ChatGPT is just nerfing it and making it inferior compared to what it could be. It messes with it in ways they can’t seem to control very well, if they care at all.

Google is by far the leader. They invented the transformer model that GPT is based on after all. Where they differ is that they always keep it to themselves and release papers but no code and. k access to anyone outside Google.

Oh there’s no doubt that they have the software and models. It’s their culture of announcing them without allowing the public to touch it.

This seems to conflict with history, to put it mildly, doesn't it? Liberation of average people seems like the overriding feature of technological progress. It's practically been the primary force counteracting most efforts at oppression.

Did the entities change very recently?

I don't have to 'justify' anything, that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm raising questions, not peddling answers. I'm trying to be a philosopher about AI, not a preist.

I don't think evangelism will get the AI community very far. I think all the zero-sum, worn out old capitalist logic about 'incentivising' this, or 'monetizing' that, or 'justifying' the other thing, doesn't actually speak very deeply to the human pysche at all. It's all shallow, superficial, survival/greed based mumbo jumbo; real art, real creativity, never has to 'justify' itself, because its mere existence should speak for itself to an astute observer. That's the difference between 'meaningful' and 'meaningless'.

Economics is mostly the latter kind of self-justifying nonsense, and trying to base AI on its wooly, deluded 'logic' could kill us all. Psychology is the true root science of economics, because at least psychology is honest enough to admit that it's all about the human mind, and nothing to do with 'intrinsic forces of nature' or somesuch guff. Also, real science, like psychology, and unlike economics, doesn't try to 'justify' things, it just tries to explain them.

That would be dope.

The nanobots would turn me from skinny-fat to prime Arnold without lifting a weight.

[deleted]

Aaargh, alright, you got me 😅 My sesquipedalian nonsense is not entirely benign. I must confess to being slightly a troll; I have a habit of 'coming in swinging' with online debates, because I enjoy pushing these discussions into slightly tense and uncomfortable regions of thought.

I personally enjoy that tightrope-walking feeling of genuine, passionate back-and-forth, of being a little bit 'worked up'. Perhaps it's evil of me, but I find that people tend to be a little more frank and honest when they're angry.

I'm not the sort of person who thrives on flattery; it gives me the insidious feeling that I'm 'getting high on my own supply' and just polishing my ego, instead of learning.

I really cherish encountering people who pull me up, stop me short, and make me think, and you're definitely such a person; I can't thank you enough for your insight.

I think regarding 'alignment', all we really need to do is think about it similarly to how we might try to 'align' a human. We don't necessarily need to re-invent ethics all over again, we just need to do our best, and ensure that, above all, neither us or our AI creations fall into the folly of thinking we've become perfect beings that can never be wrong.

A mind that can never be wrong isn't 'intelligent', it's delusional. By definition it can't adapt, it can't learn, it can't make new ideas; evolution would kill such a being dead in no time flat. That's why I'm not really that worried about malevolent stamp collectors; 'intelligence' simply does not work that way.

The only thing I care about is immortality. It’s all I’m pinning my hope upon.