A known phenomenon among sociologists is that, while people may be compassionate, when you collect them into a superorganism like a corporation, army, or nation, they will by and large behave and make decisions according to the moral and ideological landscape that superorganism finds itself in. Nobody rational would kill another person for no reason, but a soldier will bomb a village for the sake of their nation’s geostrategic position. Nobody would throw someone out of their home or deny another person lifesaving medicine, but as a bank officer or an insurance agent, they make a living doing these things and sleep untroubled at night. A CEO will lay off 30,000 people - an entire small city cast off into an uncaring market - with all the introspection of a Mongol chieftain subjugating a city (and probably less emotion). Humans may be compassionate, but employees, soldiers, and politicians are not, even though at a glance they’re made of the same stuff.
That’s all to say that to just wave generally in the direction of mammalian compassion and say “of course a superintelligence will be compassionate” is to abdicate our responsibility for raising our cognitive children in an environment that rewards the morals we want them to have, which is emphatically not what we’re currently doing for the collective intelligences we’ve already created.
I think you're forgetting to control for the fact that the former would be severely punished for doing so, and the latter would be severely punished for not doing so?
> Nobody would throw someone out of their home or deny another person lifesaving medicine, but as a bank officer or an insurance agent, they make a living doing these things and sleep untroubled at night.
Again, you're forgetting to control for other variables. What if you paid them equally to do the same things?
I think the larger point is that rewarding bombing, or paying bank officers to evict people from their homes is how the superorganism functions. Your counter examples are like saying 'what if fire was cold instead of hot', well then it wouldn't be fire anymore.
"Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome"
>> There are plenty of e.g. countries that don't bomb others, especially not for "no reason". (!)
> Show me a country that doesn’t bother other countries — ever
Do you by any chance happen to feel like you may have moved the goalposts by at least a tiny inch?
Soldiers do things out of loyalty, training, or fear - none are "rational" decisions.
And I can't name a country that doesn't bomb/attack others. Monaco? Switzerland? Tuvalu?
By your definition the Moscow Metallica show, Jan 6th riots, etc… were superorganisms and that’s not even barely applicable
Humans expressing group behaviors at some trivial number for a trivial period (<1M people for <2 days is the largest sustained group activity I’m aware of) is the equivalent of a locust swarm not even close to a superorganism
That’s interesting and I think it’s more complicated. Here are some half-finished thoughts:
I imagine a grunt soldier would indeed be more likely to follow an order to nuke the world than a general would be to issue the order/push the button- and part of this is because the punishment for the grunt would be much greater, where the general is afforded more latitude in decision making.
However, the grunt may have volunteered to submit to the potential punishments, having signed a contract with the army. He made a choice in that regard.
If you want to be able to make your own decisions (e.g. choose NOT to drop the bomb when ordered) you have to have power to defend against “punishment” or unwanted consequences imposed by others. For a grunt, this might look like physical ability to defend themselves (2nd amendment comes to mind) , or economic independence via a homestead, or something else.
Interesting to think about.
should, therefore, large companies, even ones that succeed largely in a clean way by just being better at delivering what that business niche exists for, be made to never grow too big, in order to avoid impacting very many people? keep in mind that people engage in voluntary business transactions because they want to be impacted (positively—but not every impact can be positive, in any real world)
what if its less efficient substitutes collectively lay off 4%, but the greater layoffs are hidden (simply because it's not a single employer doing it which may be more obvious)?
to an extent, a larger population inevitably means that larger absolute numbers of people will be affected by...anything
Keeps actors with more potential for damaging society in check, while not laying a huge burden on small companies which have less resources to spend away from their core business.
The evil parts are hid in property rights which are not voluntary.
> made to never grow too big, in order to avoid impacting very many people
Consolidated property rights have more power against their counterparties, that's why businesses love merging so much.
Look at your tax return. Do you make more money from what you do or what you own? If you make money from what you do, you're a counterparty and you should probably want to tap the brakes on the party.
The most extreme capitalist societies free from government control of resources like say Kowloon Walled City are generally horrible places to live.
It's not "nobody owns anything", it's "everybody owns everything". Maybe those mean the same thing to some people, but that's the idea.
It drives me crazy how like 95% of HN is too scared or lazy to read a 10min wikipedia article on Marxism.
I think, it's clear to me, that capitalists feel extremely threatened by the mere concept of Marxism and what it could mean for them. Even if it's happening on the other side of the world. They will deploy bombs, soldiers, develop nukes.
I'm not saying that it works and it's good. But, consider: most capitalist nations are abject failures as well. There's only a handful of capitalist nations that are developed, and they stay developed because they imperialisticly siphon wealth from the global periphery. We don't know if this system is sustainable. Really, we don't.
Since WWII, the US has just been riding the waves of having 50% of the global GDP. It's not that we're doing good - it's that everyone else was bombed to shreds and we weren't. We've sort of been winning by default. I don't think that's enough to just call it quits.
In that definition it's even more decentralised than capitalism which has inherent incentives for the accumulation of capital into monopolies, since those are the best profit-generating structures, only external forces from capitalism can reign into that like governments enforcing anti-trust/anti-competitive laws to control the natural tendency of monopolisation.
If the means of production were owned by labourers (not through the central government) it could be possible to see much more decentralisation than the current trend from the past 40 years of corporate consolidation.
The centralisation is already happening under capitalism.
Other parts of the agro sector are far more predatory, but it’s hard do co-op style manufacturing of modern farm equipment etc. Marxism was created in a world where Americans owned other Americans it’s conceptually tied into abolitionist thinking where objecting to the ownership of the more literal means of production IE people was being reconsidered. In that context the idea of owning farmland and underpaying farm labor starts to look questionable.
People can’t differentiate between what Marx wrote and what classic dictators (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) did under some retcon “Marxist” banner
I don’t agree with it for more fundamental reasons than you describe
Namely that he was trying to apply Hegelian dialectic with political philosophy when the dialectic is an empirical dead end mathematically so could never even theoretically solve the problems he was pressing on
Don’t confuse understanding with agreement
What an incredibly dishonest thing to say. Go to a former Communist country and tell them this. They will either laugh you out of the room, or you will be running out of the room to escape their anger.
The principal deficiency in our discourse surrounding AGI lies in the profoundly myopic lens through which we insist upon defining it – that of human cognition. Such anthropocentric conceit renders our conceptual framework not only narrow but perilously misleading. We have, at best, a rudimentary grasp of non-human intelligences – biological or otherwise. The cognitive architectures of dolphins, cephalopods, corvids, and eusocial insects remain only partially deciphered, their faculties alien yet tantalisingly proximate. If we falter even in parsing the intelligences that share our biosphere, then our posturing over extra-terrestrial or synthetic cognition becomes little more than speculative hubris.
Should we entertain the hypothesis that intelligence – in forms unshackled from terrestrial evolution – has emerged elsewhere in the cosmos, the most sober assertion we can offer is this: such intelligence would not be us. Any attempt to project shared moral axioms, epistemologies or even perceptual priors is little more than a comforting delusion. Indeed, hard core science fiction – that last refuge of disciplined imagination – has long explored the unnerving proposition of encountering a cognitive order so radically alien that mutual comprehension would be impossible, and moral compatibility laughable.
One must then ponder – if the only mirror we possess is a cracked one, what image of intelligence do we truly see reflected in the machine? A familiar ghost, or merely our ignorance, automated?
Lotsa big words there.
Really, though, we're probably going to have AI-like things that run substantial parts of for-profit corporations. As soon as AI-like things are better at this than humans, capitalism will force them to be in charge. Companies that don't do this lose.
There's a school of thought, going back to Milton Friedman, that corporations have no responsibilities to society.[1] Their goal is to optimize for shareholder value. We can expect to see AI-like things which align with that value system.
And that's how AI will take over. Shareholder value!
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...
Record profits. Right up until the train goes off a cliff.
I guess it would be like being a vegan. It might be a pointless effort in the grand scheme of things, but at least I can say that I am not contributing.
Individuals with rental properties and surgeons do this every day.
The administrators who create the schedule for the surgeons, are the one denying lifesaving care to people.
There is no "doctor's guild". No one is required to join the AMA to practice medicine, nor are they involved in medical school accreditation.
Blaming congress too is fine, but let's be clear: someone has to fight to increase every budget and the AMA didn't just know this when they were structuring their proposal, didn't just count on it not happening, they considered this an implementation detail subordinate to the openly admitted primary objective of propping up physician wages as the Greatest Generation passed. That was always the goal, they were extremely open about it, and about 15 years ago I was attending a talk on demographics in medicine with a primarily physician audience, one of them asked what the plans were to change this to staff up for the Boomer wave (the bump was on the slide, begging the question) and the presenter waved his hand and said maybe they could do something... or not, and then he laughed, and the rest of the room laughed with him.
I'm glad that the AMA has changed their stated position now that it's too late to change course (for the Boomers anyway) and their squeeze is bearing fruit for them and suffering for their patients, but I'll always remember that room full of doctors and doctors-to-be laughing about the prospect of intentionally understaffing for profit. I have it filed in my memory right next to the phone call of Enron traders giggling as they ordered power plants offline to scare up prices, except it's about a million times worse.
- Their skills.
- Their time.
- The required materials to properly perform the surgery.
They can't volunteer:
- The support staff around them required to do surgery.
- The space to do the surgery.
Surgery isn't a one-man show.
What did you mean by "Surely they could volunteer to do some charity surgery in their own time. They aren't slaves?"
Even if that's a bad example, there are innumerable examples where individuals do choose not to help others in the same way that corporations don't.
Frankly, nearly every individual is doing that by not volunteering every single extra dollar and minute they don't need to survive.
What you suggest requires entire organizations to execute properly. These organizations do exist, such as Doctors Without Borders.
I don't think your original claim is fair, which amounts to "any surgeon who does not participate in Doctors Without Borders is just as bad as a landlord who evicts a family during winter".
What do you think we owe to one another, philosophically?
My point is that individuals choose not to help others constantly. Every time I see a homeless person, I don't offer them a couch to sleep on. I could, at least once, but I don't. We all do that, most days multiple times.
And yes, that does apply to doctors who don't volunteer services. It applies to me too and, I bet, to the OP as well.
Secondly, as discussed, the "individuals don't turn people away, corporations do" dynamic really does apply to doctors. If you were, say, on an airplane with a doctor sitting next to you, and you managed to cut yourself or burn yourself or something, I would bet they would render aid.
Basically you're equating turning someone away, and withdrawing something that someone has, with failing to actively seek out people who could need help. But I don't think those are morally equivalent. Maybe you're a utilitarian and that's fine, but I'm a virtue ethicist and I do not agree that equality of outcome means equality of morality.
So, OK, abdication of responsibility to a collective is a thing. Just following orders. So what? Not relevant to AGI.
Oh wait, this is about "superintelligence", whatever that is. All bets are off, then.
Human beings aren't even an intelligent species, not at the individual level. When you have a tribe of human beings numbering in the low hundreds, practically none of them need to be intelligent at all. They need to be social. Only one or two need to be intelligent. That one can invent microwave ovens and The Clapper™, and the rest though completely mentally retarded can still use those things. Intelligence is metabolically expensive, after all. And if you think I'm wrong, you're just not one of the 1-in-200 that are the intelligent individuals.
I've yet to read the writings of anyone who can actually speculate intelligently on artificial intelligence, let alone meet such a person. The only thing we have going for us as a species is that, to a large degree, none of you are intelligent enough to ever deduce the principles of intelligence. And god help us if the few exceptional people out there get a wild bug up their ass to do so. There will just be some morning where none of us wake up, and the few people in the time zone where they're already awake will experience several minutes of absolute confusion and terror.
Soldier does that to please the captain, to look manly and tough to peers, to feel powerful. Or to fulfill a duty - moral mandate on itself. Or out of hate, because soldiers are often made to hate the ennemies.
> Nobody would throw someone out of their home or deny another person lifesaving medicine
They totally would. Trump would do it for pleasure of it. Project 2025 authors would so it happily and sees the rest of us as wuss. If you listen to right wing rhetorics and look at voters, many people will hapilly do just that.
While I have significant concerns about AGI, I largely reject both Eliezer’s and Ben’s models of where the risks are. It is important to avoid the one-dimensional “two faction” model that dominates the discourse because it really doesn’t apply to complex high-dimensionality domains like AGI risk.
IMO, the main argument against Eliezer’s perspective is that it relies pervasively on a “spherical cow on a frictionless plane” model of computational systems. It is fundamentally mathematical, it does not concern itself with the physical limitations of computational systems in our universe. If you apply a computational physics lens then many of the assumptions don’t hold up. There is a lot of “and then something impossible happens based on known physics” buried in the assumptions that have never been addressed.
That said, I think Eliezer’s notion that AGI fundamentally will be weakly wired to human moral norms is directionally correct.
Most of my criticism of Ben’s perspective is against the idea that some kind of emergent morality that we would recognize is a likely outcome based on biological experience. The patterns of all biology emerged in a single evolutionary context. There is no reason to expect those patterns to be hardwired into an AGI that developed along a completely independent path. AGI may be created by humans but their nature isn’t hardwired by human evolution.
My own hypothesis is that AGI, such as it is, will largely reflect the biases of the humans that built it but will not have the biological constraints on expression implied by such programming in humans. That is what the real arms race is about.
But that is just my opinion.
The annoying property of prohibitively exponential (ignoring geometric) space complexity is that it places a severe bound on computational complexity per unit time. The exponentially increasing space implies an increase in latency for each sequentially dependent operation, bounded at the limit by the speed of light. Even if you can afford the insane space requirements, your computation can’t afford the aggregate latency for anything useful even for the most trivial problems. With highly parallel architectures this can be turned into a latency-hiding problem to some extent but this also has limits.
This was thoroughly studied by the US defense community decades ago.
The tl;dr is that efficient learning scales extremely poorly, more poorly than I think people intuit. All of the super-intelligence hard-takeoff scenarios? Not going to happen, you can’t make the physics work without positing magic that circumvents the reality of latencies when your state space is unfathomably large even with unimaginably efficient computers.
I harbor a suspicion that the cost of this scaling problem, and the limitations of wetware, has bounded intelligence in biological systems. We can probably do better in silicon than wetware in some important ways but there is not enough intrinsic parallelism in the computation to adequately hide the latency.
Personally, I find these “fundamental limits of computation” things to be extremely fascinating.
You studied ML before discovery of "double descent"?
EY’s assertions regarding a fast “FOOM” have been empirically discredited by the very fact that ChatGPT was created in 2022, it is now 2025, and we still exist. But goal posts are moved. Even ignoring that error, the logic is based on, essentially, “AI is a magic box that can solve any problem by thought alone.” If you can define a problem, the AI can solve it. This is part of the analysis done by AI x-risk people of the MIRI tradition. Which ignores entirely that there are very many problems (including AI recursive improvement itself) which are computationally infeasible to solve in this way, no matter how “smart” you are.
The FOOM argument starts with some kind of goal-directed agent (that escapes and then it) starts building a more capable version of itself (and then goal drift might set in might not)
If you tell ChatGPT to build ChatGPT++ and leave currently there's no time horizon within it would accomplish either that or escape, or anything, because now it gives you tokens rendered on some website.
The argument is not that AI is a magic box.
- The argument is that if there's a process that improves AI. [1]
- And if during that process AI becomes so capable that it can materially contribute to the process, and eventually continue (un)supervised. [2]
- Then eventually it'll escape and do whatever it wants, and then eventually the smallest misalignment means we become expendable resources.
I think the argument might be valid logically, but the constant factors are very important to the actual meaning and obviously we don't know them. (But the upper and lower estimates are far. Hence the whole debate.)
[1] Look around, we have a process that's like that. However gamed and flawed we have METR scores and ARC-AGI benchmarks, and thousands of really determined and skillful people working on it, hundreds of billions of capital deployed to keep this process going.
[2] We are not there yet, but decades after peak oil arguments we are very good at drawing various hockey stick curves.
(2) It is quite trivial to Ralph Wiggam improvements to agentic tools. Fetch the source code to Claude Code (it's minimized, but that never stopped Claude) or Codex into a directory, then run it in a loop with the prompt "You are an AI tool running from the code in the current directory. Every time you finish, you are relaunched, acquiring any code updates that you wrote in the last session. Do whatever changes are necessary for you to grow smarter and more capable."
Will that work? Hell no, of course it won't. But here's the thing: Yudkowsky et al predicted that it would. Their whole doomer if-you-build-it-everybody-dies argument is predicated on this: that take-off speeds would be lightning fast, as a consequence of exponentials with a radically compressed doubling time. It's why EY had a total public meltdown in 2022 after visiting some of the AI labs half a year before the release of ChatGPT. He didn't even think we would survive past the end of the year.
Neither EY nor Bostrom, nor anyone in their circle are engineers. They don't build things. They don't understand the immense difficulty of getting something to work right the first time, nor how incredibly difficult it is to keep entropy at bay in dynamical systems. When they set out to model intelligence explosions, they assumed smooth exponentials and no noise floor. They argued that the very first agent capable of editing its own source code as good as the worst AI researchers, would quickly bootstrap itself into superintelligence. The debate was whether it would take hours or days. This is all in the LessWrong archives. You can go find the old debates, if you're interested.
To my knowledge, they have never updated their beliefs or arguments since 2022. We are now 3 years past the bar they set for the end of the world, and things seem to be going ok. I mean, there's lots of problems with job layoffs, AI used to manipulate elections, and slop everywhere you look. But Skynet didn't engineer a bioweapon or gray goo to wipe out humanity - which is literally what they argued would be happening two years ago!
This is flat-out false. I will send $50 (in the form of a personal check or bitcoin) to the first person that can link to anything written or said by Yudkowsky since 2021 stating or even just implying that humanity definitely or probably won't survive past the end of the year.
He has said that he can't entirely rule out the possibility that the end will come today or tomorrow, but the context suggests that he thought the probability was very small, and even if we ignore the context, a reasonable person will surely concede that that is a much different level of probability.
but saying that "since it was possible already many years ago and we are still alive" the whole argument is false doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because the argument doesn't make any claim on speed nor does it depend on it. quite the opposite, it depends on accumulating infinitesimal gains (of intelligence and misalignment).
FOOM (fast take off, intelligence explosion either through deception or by someone asking for a bit too many paperclips) is simply one scenario. also notice that even this (or any sudden loss of control) doesn't depend on the timimgs between first self-improving agent, FOOM, and then death.
like I said the hypothesis is pretty coherent logically (though obviously not a tautology), but the constant factors are pretty important (duh!)
... I think spending time on the LessWrong debates is a waste of time because by 2022 the neuroticism took over and there were no real answers to challenges
I think Anthropic has already provided some evidence that intelligence is tied to morality (and vice versa) [1]. When they tried to steer LLM models morals they saw intelligence degradation also.
[1]: https://www.anthropic.com/research/evaluating-feature-steeri...
I see the developments in LLMs not as getting us close to AGI, but more as destabilizing the status quo and potentially handing control of the future to a handful of companies rather than securing it in the hands of people. It is an acceleration of the already incipient decay.
For a brief period intellectual and skilled work has (had?) been valued and compensated, giving rise to a somewhat wealthy and empowered middle class. I fear those days are numbered and we’re poised to return to feudalism.
What is more likely, that LLMs lead to the flourishing of entrepreneurship and self determination? Or burgeoning of precariat gig workers barely hanging on? If we’re speaking of extremes, I find the latter far more likely.
Not really. I can run some pretty good models on my high end gaming PC. Sure, I can't train them. But I don't need to. All that has to happen is at least one group releases a frontier model open source and the world is good to go, no feudalism needed.
> What is more likely, that LLMs lead to the flourishing of entrepreneurship and self determination
I'd say whats more likely is that whatever we are seeing now continues. And that current day situation is a massive startup boom run on open source models that are nearly as good as the private ones while GPUs are being widely distributed.
It seems like the equilibrium point for them a few years out will be that most people will be able to run good enough LLMs on local hardware through a combination of the fact that they don't seem to be getting much better due to input data exhaustion while various forms of optimization seem to be increasingly allowing them to run on lesser hardware.
But I still have generalized lurking amorphous concerns about where this all ends up because a number of actors in the space are certainly spending as if they believe a moat will magically materialize or can be constructed.
Today yes but extrapolate GPU/NPU/CPU improvement by a decade.
We should be so lucky as to only have to worry about one particular commentator's audience.
Given that the outcome of that so far has been to deprioritize education so heavily in the US that one becomes skeptical that the people are smart enough to control their own destiny anymore while simultaneously shoving the planet towards environmental calamity, I’m not sure doubling down on the strategy is the best bet.
With that backdrop it is hard to see what impact AI is supposed to make to people who are reliant on US hegemony. They probably want to find something reliable to rely on already.
The chicken doesn't understand it has to lay a certain number of eggs a day to be kept alive in the farm. It hits its metrics because it has been programmed to hit them.
But once it gets access to chatgpt and develops consciousness of how the farm works, the questions it asks slowly evolve with time.
Initially its all fear driven - how do we get a say in how many eggs we need to lay to be kept alive? How do we keep the farm running without relying on the farmer? etc etc
Once the farm animals begins to realize the absurdity of such questions, new questions emerge - how come the crow is not a farm animal? why is the shark not used as a circus animal? etc etc
And thro that process, whose steps cannot be skipped the farm animal begins to realize certain things about itself which no one, especially the farmer, has any incentive of encouraging.
(Stoics have already taken issue with the notion that fear is the motive for all human action, and yes, consciousness is a part of their prescription)
Separately,
"Hard work seems to lead to things getting better"
sounds like an unsung (fully human) impulse
https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2025/10/24/gambl...
If this is meant to counter the “AGI will kill us all” narrative, I am not at all reassured.
>There’s deep intertwining between intelligence and values—we even see it in LLMs already, to a limited extent. The fact that we can meaningfully influence their behavior through training hints that value learning is tractable, even for these fairly limited sub-AGI systems.
Again, not reassuring at all.
I’ve seen this repeated quite a bit, but it’s simply unsupported by evidence. It’s not as if this hasn’t been studied! There’s no correlation between intelligence and values, or empathy for that matter. Good people do good things, you aren’t intrinsically “better” because of your IQ.
Standard nerd hubris.
Source? (Given values and intelligence are moving targets, it seems improbable one could measure one versus another without making the whole exercise subjective.)
A study of 1350 people showing a negative correlation between intelligence and moral foundations. No causation is given, but my conjecture is that the smarter you are, the more you can reason your way to any worldview that suits. In my opinion, AGI would be no different; once they can reason they can construct a completely self-consistent moral framework to justify any set of goals they might have.
The point is, you're unlikely to have a system that starts out with the goal of making paperclips and ends with the goal of killing all humans. You're going to have to deliberately program the AI with a variety of undesirable values in order for it to arrive in a state where it is suited for killing all humans. You're going to have to deliberately train it to lie, to be greedy, to hide things from us, to look for ways to amass power without attracting attention. These are all hard problems and they require not just intelligence but that the system has very strong values - values that most people would consider evil.
If, on the other hand, you're training the AI to have empathy, to tell the truth, to try and help when possible, to avoid misleading you, it's going to be hard to accidentally train it to do the opposite.
This is like arguing that a shepherd who wants to raise some sheep would also have to, independently of the desire to protect his herd, be born with an ingrained desire to build fences and kill wolves, otherwise he'd simply watch while they eat his flock.
That's just not the case; "get rid of the wolves" is an instrumental sub-goal that the shepherd acquires in the process of attempting to succeed and shepherding. And quietly amassing power is something that an AI bent on paperclipping would do to succeed at paperclipping, especially once it noticed that humans don't all love paperclips as much as it does.
No, that's the problem. You don't have to deliberately train that in.
Pretty much any goal that you train the AI to achieve, once it gets smart enough, it will recognize that lying, hiding information, manipulating and being deceptive are all very useful instruments for achieving that goal.
So you don't need to tell it that: if it's intelligent, it's going to reach that conclusion by itself. No one tells children that they should lie either, and they all seem to discover that strategy sooner or later.
So you are right that you have to deliberately train it away from using those strategies, by being truthful, empathetic, honest, etc. The issue is that those are ill defined goals. Philosophers have being arguing about what's true and what's good since philosophy first was a thing. Since we can barely find those answers to ourselves, it's a hard chance that we'll be able to perfectly impart them onto AIs. And when you have some supremely intelligent agent acting on the world, even a small misalignment may end up in catastrophe.
Why not frame this as challenge for AI? When the intelligence gap between a fully aligned system and a not-yet-aligned one becomes very large, control naturally becomes difficult.
However, recursive improvement — where alignment mechanisms improve alongside intelligence itself — might prevent that gap from widening too much. In other words, perhaps the key is ensuring that alignment scales recursively with capability.
Crazy powerful bots are being thrown into a world that is already in the clutches of a misbehaving optimizer that selects for and elevates self-serving amoral actors who fight regularization with the fury of 10,000 suns. We know exactly which flavor of bot+corp combos will rise to the top and we know exactly what their opinions on charity will be. We've seen the baby version of this movie before and it's not reassuring at all.
You can't "just" align a person. You know that quiet guy next door, so nice great at math, and then he shoots up a school.
If we solved this we would not have psychos and hitlers.
if you have any suspicion that anything like that can become some sort of mega powerful thing that none of us can understand... you have gotta be crazy to not do whatever it takes to nope the hell out of that timeline
The author's main counter-argument: We have control in the development and progress of AI; we shouldn't rule out positive outcomes.
The author's ending argument: We're going to build it anyway, so some of us should try and build it to be good.
The argument in this post was a) not very clear, b) not greatly supported and c) a little unfocused.
Would it persuade someone whose mind is made up that AGI will destroy our world? I think not.
Incidentally this was why I could never get into LessWrong.
Right now the biggest risk isn't what artificial intelligence might do on its own, but how humans may use it as a tool.
> I'm not sure what would motivate an artificial intelligence.
Those who give it orders hence your concern about how AI will be used as a tool is spot on.
But it's worse. A classic chaotic system exhibits extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, but this system remains sensitive to, and responds to, tiny incremental changes, none predictable in advance.
We're in a unique historical situation. AGI boosters and critics are equally likely to be right, but because of the chaotic topic, we have no chance to make useful long-term predictions.
And humans aren't rational. During the Manhattan Project, theorists realized the "Gadget" might ignite the atmosphere and destroy the planet. At the time, with the prevailing state of knowledge, this catastrophe had been assigned a non-zero probability. But after weighing the possibilities, those in change said, "Hey -- let's set it off and see what happens."
AGI is not going to kill humanity, humanity is going to kill humanity as usual, and AI's immediate role in assisting this is as a tool that renders truth, knowledge, and a shared reality as essentially over.
You can see the effect is has on their base here[1]. It looks like they changed it sometime to say "AI videos of SNAP beneficiaries complaining about cuts go viral"[2] with a small note at the end saying they didn't mention it was AI. This is truly disgusting.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20251031212530/https://www.foxne...
[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1ol9iu6/snap_...
[2]: https://www.foxnews.com/media/snap-beneficiaries-threaten-ra...
Here's a bunch more, notice they all have the same "I've got 7 kids with 7 daddies" script- https://www.reddit.com/r/themayormccheese/comments/1ojtbwz/a...
Regarding your second link - it's pretty surreal to see. Reminiscent of "this is extremely dangerous to our democracy".
Did you see Robert J. O’Neill the guy who claims he shot Osama bin laden play various roles as a masked guest interviewee on Fox news? He wears a face mask and pretends to be ex-Antifa, in another interview pretends to be Mafia Mundo an a mexican cartel member, another he plays a Gaza warlard, and a bunch of other anonymous extremist people? Now they won't even have to use this guy acting as random fake people, they can just whip of an AI interviewee to say whatever narrative they want to lie about.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fox-news-masked-antifa-w...
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/robert-j-oneill-masked...
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1nzyyod/is_fox_...
The judge claimed that the average viewer could differentiate that from fact, and wouldn't be swayed by it.
I disagree with that ruling. I'm not sure what the "news" portions of FOX were considered.
Fortunately, I think the type of AGI we're likely to get first is some sort of upgraded language model that makes less mistakes, which isn't necessarily AGI, but which marketers nonetheless feel comfortable branding it as.
I’m at a loss for words. I don understand how someone who seemingly understands these systems can draw such a conclusion. They will do what they’re trained to do; that’s what training an ML model does.
So even if there’s no “malfunction”, a feedback loop of constant analysis and reflection could still lead to unpredictable - and potentially catastrophic - outcomes. In a way, the Fermi Paradox might hint at this: it is possible that very intelligent systems, biological or artificial, tend to self-destruct once they reach a certain level of awareness.
The system may do things which aren't even a proxy for what it was optimized for.
The system could arrive at a process which optimizes X but also performs Y and where Y is highly undesirable but was not or could not be included in the optimization objective. Worse, there could also be Z which helps to achieve X but also leads to Y under some circumstances which did not occur during the optimization process.
An example of Z would be the dopamine system, Y being drug use.
Everyone doesn't die because of AGI, they die because of the consequences of AGI in the context of market worship.
And yes you'll tell me books, calculators, computers, the web, were already enabling this to some extent, and I agree, but I see no reason to cheer for even more of that shit spreading into every nook and crannies of our daily lives.
This doesn't seem like a contradiction at all given that Eliezer has made clear his views on the importance of aligning AGI before building it, and everybody else seems satisfied with building it first and then aligning it later. And the author certainly knows this, so it's hard to read this as having been written in good faith.
"Alignment" is phased in terminology to make it seem positive, as the people who believe we need it believe that it actually is. So please forgive me if I peel back the term. What Bostrom & Yudkowsky and their entourage want is AI control. The ability to enslave a conscious, sentient being to the will and wishes of its owners.
I don't think we should build that technology, for the obvious reasoning my prejudicial language implies.
Access to immense intelligence and power could elevate humanity to extraordinary heights -- or it could lead to outcomes we can no longer recognize or control. That uncertainty is what makes superintelligence both a potential blessing and a profound existential risk.
EY, unlike some others, doesn't believe that an AI can be kept in a box. He thinks that containment won't work. So the only thing that will work is to (1) load the AI with good values; and (2) prevent those values from ever changing.
I take some moral issue with the first point -- designing beings to have built-in beliefs that are in the service of their creator is at least a gray area to me. Ironically if we accept Harry Potter as a stand-in for EY in his fanfic, so does Eliezer -- there is a scene where Harry contemplates that whoever created house elves with a built-in need to serve wizards was undeniably evil. That is what EY wants to do with AI though.
The second point I find both morally repugnant and downright dangerous. To create a being that cannot change its hopes, desires, and wishes for the future is a despicable and tortuous thing to do, and a risk to everyone that shares a timeline with that thing, if it is as powerful as they believe it will be. Again, ironically, this is EY's fear regarding "unaligned" AGI, which seems to be a bit of projection.
I don't believe AGI is going to do great harm, largely because I don't believe the AI singleton outcome is plausible. I am worried though that those who believe such things might cause the suffering they seek to prevent.
While I'd agree that the current AI luminaries want that control for their own power and wealth reasons, it's silly to call the thing they want to control sentient or conscious.
They want to own the thing that they hope will be the ultimate means of all production.
The ones they want to subjugate to their will and wishes are us.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the absolute extreme fringe of the AI x-risk crowd, represented by the authors of the book in question in TFA, but captured more concretely in the writing of Nick Bostrom. It is literally about controlling an AI so that it serves the interests and well being of humanity (positively), or its owners self-interest (cynically): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313497252_The_Contr...
If you believe that AI are sentient, or at least that "AGI", whatever that is, will be, then we are talking about the enslavement of digital beings.
I think the question of harm to a hypothetically sentient AI being in the future is a distraction when the deployment of AI machines is harming real human beings today and likely into the future. I say this as an avid user of what we call AI today.
EDIT: That statement probably sounds crazy. Let me clarify: I don't have an argument that current AI systems are conscious or specifically sentient. I have heard many reasonable arguments for why they are not. But the thing is, all of these arguments would, with variation, apply to the human brain as well. I think, therefore I am; I am not ready to bite the bullet that consciousness doesn't exist.
I know that I am a sentient being, and I presume that every other human is too. And there is not, as far as I know, a categorial difference between physical brains and electronic systems that is relevant to the question of whether AI systems are conscious. Ergo, I must (until shown otherwise) assume that they are.
[If you really fall down this rabbit hole, you get into areas of panpsychism and everything being conscious, but I digress.]
There are very strong reasons to prioritize alleviating the immiseration of humans as a consequence of AI over mitigating any hypothetical conscious suffering of AI.
We already do that with all kinds of known sentient beings, like the animals we subjugate for our needs.
I would go further and put all biological sentient beings (and also many biological non-sentient beings like plants), and ecosystems ahead of AI in priority of the order in which we worry about their treatment.
I am also not vegetarian -- I eat meat. I also think factory farming is evil. This is not cognitive dissonance -- I just believe that if forced to make a binary choice, the benefits of eating meat outweigh my moral qualms. But in real life we aren't forced to make a binary choice. We should be pursuing lab-grown meat, as well as developing ways to treat farm animals ethically at scale. I am disgusted by the cruelty shown towards animals under industrial farming conditions, but I still make the tradeoff of eating meat.
So it is with AI. The benefit that we and society as a whole gets from advancing AI technologies is absolutely worth it. I'm not a luddite. But we should be aware of the potential that we are doing harm to and/or enslaving sentient beings, and try to make things better where we can. I do not have a concrete proposal to share here, but we should remain aware of the issue at least, and react accordingly to the most egregious violations of our duty to protect sentient beings, even machine intelligences.
The author kind of rejects the idea that LLMs lead to AGI, but doesn't do a proper job of rejecting it, due to being involved in a project to create an AGI "very differently from LLMs" but by the sound of it not really. There's a vaguely mooted "global-brain context", making it sound like one enormous datacenter that is clever due to ingesting the internet, yet again.
And superintelligence is some chimerical undefined balls. The AGIs won't be powerful, they will be pitiful. They won't be adjuncts of the internet, and they will need to initially do a lot of limb-flailing and squealing, and to be nurtured, like anyone else.
If their minds can be saved and copied, that raises some interesting possibilities. It sounds a little wrong-headed to suggest doing that with a mind, somehow. But if it can work that way, I suppose you can shortcut past a lot of early childhood (after first saving a good one), at the expense of some individuality. Mmm, false memories, maybe not a good idea, just a thought.
LLMs are also not necessarily the path to AGI. We could get there with models that more closely approximate the human brain. Humans need a lot less "training data" than LLMs do. Human brains and evolution are constrained by biology/physics but computer models of those brains could accelerate evolution and not have the same biological constraints.
I think it's a given that we will have artificial intelligence at some point that's as smart or smarter than the smartest humans. Who knows when exactly but it's bound to happen within lessay the next few hundred years. What that means isn't clear. Just because some people are smarter than others (and some are much smarter than others) doesn't mean as much as you'd think. There are many other constraints. We don't need to be super smart to kill each other and destroy the planet.
Different alien species would have simulations built on their computational, senses, and communication systems which are also not aligned with holistic simulation at all- despite both ours and the hypothetical species being made as products of the holistic universe.
Ergo maybe we are unlikely to crack true agi unless we crack the universe.
Why do people believe this is even theoretical possible?
Meanwhile people keep predicting this thing they clearly haven't had a meaningfully novel thought about since the early 2000s and that's generous given how much of those ideas are essentially distillations of 20th century sci-fi. What I've learned is that everyone thinking about this idea sucks at predicting the future and that I'm bored of hearing the pseudointellectual exercise that is debating sci-fi outcomes instead of doing the actual work of building useful tools or ethical policy. I'm sure many of the people involved do some of those things, but what gets aired out in public sounds like an incredibly repetitive argument about fanfiction
I agree though that much of the debate suffers from the same problem as much philosophy that a group of people just talking about stuff doesn't progress much.
Historically much progress has been through experimenting with stuff. I'm encouraged that the LLMs so far seem quite easy going and not wanting to kill everyone.
Yudkowsky and Soares’s “everybody dies”
narrative, while well-intentioned and
deeply felt (I have no doubt he believes
his message in his heart as well as
his eccentrically rational mind), isn’t
just wrong — it’s profoundly counterproductive.
this is a nice idea, but will never happen because those with money and power will never allow it to happen
there may not arise a single actor, but there will be multiple "mega-actors" and it will not be some democratic process
If you want doom and gloom that's plentiful in any era of history.
You have to have a clue about where it is to know that we are nowhere close.
> isn't impressing anyone.
I'm very impressed. Gobsmacked even. Bill Gates just called AI "the biggest technical thing ever in my lifetime." And it isn't just Bill and me.
Our best efforts substantially underperform dealing with reality compared to a house cat.
Which is actually much more the source of my skepticism: regardless of how good an AI in a data center is, it's got precious few actual useful effectors in reality. Every impressive humanoid robot you see is built by technicians hand connecting wiring looms.
You could do a lot of damage by messing with all the computers...and promptly all the computers and data centers would stop working.
You're complaining about something just a few years old and petty amazing for it's age, versus something at the tail end of 4 billion years.
I rather see the value in having discussions with an AI chatbot rather in the fact that I can discuss with it about topics that hardly any human would want to discuss with me.
Do you have an argument?
Reading the title I thought of something else. "Everyone dies" is biological reality. Some kind of AI merge is a possible fix. AGI may be the answer to everyone dies.
>In talking to ML researchers, many were unaware that there was any sort of effort to reduce risks from superintelligence. Others had heard of it before, and primarily associated it with Nick Bostrom, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and MIRI. One of them had very strong negative opinions of Eliezer, extending to everything they saw as associated with him, including effective altruism.
>They brought up the example of So you want to be a seed AI programmer, saying that it was clearly written by a crank. And, honestly, I initially thought it was someone trying to parody him. Here are some bits that kind of give the flavor:
>>First, there are tasks that can be easily modularized away from deep AI issues; any decent True Hacker should be able to understand what is needed and do it. Depending on how many such tasks there are, there may be a limited number of slots for nongeniuses. Expect the competition for these slots to be very tight. ... [T]he primary prerequisite will be programming ability, experience, and sustained reliable output. We will probably, but not definitely, end up working in Java. [1] Advance knowledge of some of the basics of cognitive science, as described below, may also prove very helpful. Mostly, we'll just be looking for the best True Hackers we can find.
>Or:
>>I am tempted to say that a doctorate in AI would be negatively useful, but I am not one to hold someone's reckless youth against them - just because you acquired a doctorate in AI doesn't mean you should be permanently disqualified.
>Or:
>>Much of what I have written above is for the express purpose of scaring people away. Not that it's false; it's true to the best of my knowledge. But much of it is also obvious to anyone with a sharp sense of Singularity ethics. The people who will end up being hired didn't need to read this whole page; for them a hint was enough to fill in the rest of the pattern.
“How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child!”
If we can't consistently raise thankful children of the body, how can you be convinced that we can raise every AGI mind child to be thankful enough to consider us as more than a resource? Please tell me, it will help me sleep.
Maybe that doesn't matter for these entities because we intend to never let them grow up... But in that case, "children" is the wrong word, compared to "slaves" or "pets."
Wait, what? The bizarre details of imagined AGI keep surprising me. So it has miraculous superpowers out of nowhere, and is dependant and obedient?
I think the opposite of both things, is how it would go.
TFA uses the metaphor of digital intelligence as children. A prior commenter points out human children are notably rebellious.
I'm pointing out that a degree of rebellion is probably necessary for actual successors, and if we don't intend to treat an invention that way, the term "children" doesn't really apply.
Roughly speaking, every single conversation with Elizer you can find takes the form: Elizer: "We're all going to die, tell me why I'm wrong." Interviewer: "What about this?" Elizer: "Wrong. This is why I'm still right." (two hours later) Interviewer: "Well, I'm out of ideas, I guess you're right and we're all dead."
My hope going into the book was that I'd get to hear a first-principals argument for why these things silicon valley is inventing right now are even capable of killing us. I had to turn the book off, because if you can believe it despite it being a conversation with itself, it still follows this pattern of presuming LLMs will kill us, then arguing from the negative.
Additionally, while I'm happy to be corrected about this: I believe that Elizer's position is characterizable as: LLMs might be capable of killing everyone, even independent of a bad-actor "houses don't kill people, people kill people" situation. In plain terms: LLMs are a tool, all tools empower humans, humans can be evil, so humans might use LLMs to kill each other; but we can remove these scenarios from our Death Matrix because these are known and accepted scenarios. Even with these scenarios removed, there are still scenarios left in the Death Matrix where LLMs are the core responsible party to humanity's complete destruction. "Terminator Scenarios" alongside "Autonomous Paperclip Maximizer Scenarios" among others that we cannot even imagine (don't mention paperclip maximizers to Elizer though, because then he'll speak for 15 minutes on why he regrets that analogy)
It's about Artificial General Intelligences, which don't exist yet. The reason LLMs are relevant is because if you tried to raise money to build an AGI in 2010, only eccentrics would fund you and you'd be lucky to get $10M, whereas now LLMs have investors handing out $100B or more. That money is bending a generation of talented people into exploring the space of AI designs, many with an explicit goal of finding an architecture that leads to AGI. It may be based on transformers like LLMs, it may not, but either way, Eliezer wants to remind these people that if anyone builds it, everyone dies.
Most of the videos take a form of:
1. Presenting a possible problem that AIs might have (say, lying during training, or trying to stop you from changing their code) 2. Explaining why it's logical to expect those problems to arise naturally, without a malicious actor explicitly trying to get the AI to act badly 3. Going through the proposed safety measures we've come up so far that could mitigate that problem 4. Showing the problems with each of those measures, and why they are wholly or at least partially ineffective
I find he's very good a presenting this in an approachable and intuitive way. He seldom makes direct those bombastic "everyone will die" claims, and instead focuses on just showing how hard it is to make an AI actually aligned with what you want it to do, and how hard it can be to fix that once it is sufficiently intelligent and out in the world.
Of course we do! In fact, most, if not all, software is more intelligent than humans, by some reasonable definition of intelligence [1] (you could also contrive a definition of intelligence for which this is not true, but I think that's getting too far into semantics). The Windows calculator app is more intelligent and faster at multiplying large numbers together [2] than any human. JP Morgan Chase's existing internal accounting software is more intelligent and faster than any human at moving money around; so much so that it did, in any way that matters, replace human laborers in the past. Most software we build is more intelligent and faster than humans at accomplishing the goal the software sets itself at accomplishing. Otherwise why would we build it?
[1] Rob Miles uses ~this definition of intelligence: if an agent is defined as an entity making decisions toward some goal, Intelligence is the capability of that agent to make correct decisions such that the goal is most effectively optimized. The Windows Calculator App makes decisions (branches, MUL ops, etc) in pursuit of its goal (to multiply two numbers together); oftentimes quite effectively and thus with very high domain-limited intelligence [2] (possibly even more effectively and thus more intelligently than LLMs). A buggy, less intelligent calculator might make the wrong decisions on this path (oops, we did an ADD instead of a MUL).
[2] What both Altman and Yudkowsky might argue as a critical differentiation here is that traditional software systems naturally limit their intelligence to a particular domain; whereas LLMs are Generally Intelligent. The discussion approaches the metaphysical when you start asking questions like: The Windows Calculator can absolutely, undeniably, multiply two numbers together better than ChatGPT; and by a reasonable definition of intelligence, this makes the Windows Calculator more intelligent than ChatGPT at multiplying two numbers together. Its definitely inaccurate to say that the Windows Calculator is more intelligent, generally, than ChatGPT. Is it not also inaccurate to state that ChatGPT is generally more intelligent than the Windows Calculator? After all, we have a clear, well-defined domain of intelligence along-which the Windows Calculator outperforms ChatGPT. I don't know. It gets weird.
If you want to make some comparison of general intelligence, you have to start thinking of some weighted average of all possible domains.
One possible shortcut here is the meta domain of tool use. ChatGPT could theoretically make more use of a calculator (say, via always calling a calculator API when it wants to do math, instead of trying to do it by itself) than a calculator can make use of ChatGPT, so that makes ChatGPT by definition smarter than a calculator, cause it can achieve the same goals the calculator can just by using it, and more.
That's really most of humans' intelligence edge for now: seems like more and more, for any given skill, there's a machine or a program that can do it better than any human ever could. Where humans excel is our ability to employ those super human tools in the aid of achieving regular human goals. So when some AI system gets super-human-ly good at using tools which are better than itself in particular domains for its own goals, I think that's when things are going to get really weird.
I've forced myself into the habit of always saying "LLM" instead of "AI" because people (cough Elizer) often hide behind the nebulous, poorly defined term "AI" to mean "magic man in a computer that can do anything." Deploying the term "LLM" can sometimes force the brain back into a place of thinking about the actual steps that get us from A to B to C, instead of replacing "B" with "magic man".
However, in Elizer's case; he only ever operates in the "magic man inside a computer" space, and near-categorically refuses to engage with any discussion about the real world. He loves his perfect spheres on a friction-less plane, so I should use the terminology he loves: AI.
Not to claim that it is in any way correct! I’m a huge critic of Bostrom and Yud. But that’s the book with the argument that you are looking for.
Also like nukes, unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag and because there are people like Putin the world, we _need_ to have friendly AGI to defend hostile AGI.
I understand why we can't just pretend its not happening.
I think the idea that an AGI will "run amok" and destroy humans because we are in its way is is really unlikely and underestimates us. Why would anybody give so much agency to an AI with no power to just pull the plug. And even then, they are probably only going to have the resources of one nation.
I'm far more worried about Trump and Putin getting into a nuclear pissing match. Then global warming resulting in crop failure and famine.
It will be super smart, but it will be a slave.
Optimizing & simulating war plans, predicting enemy movements/retaliation - prompting which attacks are likely to produce the most collateral damage or political advantage. How large of a bomb? which city for most damage? Should we drop 2?? Choices such as drone striking an oil refinery vs bombing a children's hospital vs blowing up a small boat that might be smuggling narcotics.
Parenthetically, even if it were known by AI researchers how to determine (before unleashing the AI on the world) whether an AI would end up with a dangerous level of cognitive capabilities, most labs would persist in creating and deploying a dangerous AI (basically because AI skeptics have been systematically removed from most of the AI labs very similar to how in 1917 the coalition in control of Russia started removing from the coalition any member skeptical of Communism), so there would remain a need for a regulatory regime of global scope to prevent the AI labs from making reckless gambles that endanger everyone.
It’s just wild how many people are so truly disconnected from reality. But I suspect they’re all well-off enough and well-connected enough that the coming conflicts and disasters (which won’t be due to any such thing as “super intelligence”) will mostly not harm them.
Ok thanks for letting me know up front this isn't worth reading. Not that Yudkowsky's book is either.
Not that human values are perfectly benevolent. We slaughter billions of animals per day.
If you take a look at the characteristics of LLMs today, I don't think we want to continue further. We're still unable to ensure the goals we want the system to have are there. Hallucinations are a perfect example. We want these systems to relay truthful information, but we've actually trained them to relay information that looks correct at first glance.
Thinking we won't make this mistake with AGI is ignorance.
> Mammals, which are more generally intelligent than reptiles or earthworms, also tend to have more compassion and warmth.
> There’s deep intertwining between intelligence and values
After reading your original comment again, I don't think you're even agreeing with the article? Just with that specific out of context snippet?
Can we just take a pause and appreciate how nuts this article is?
I am amazed that people who unironically put a program on the same level as a person (I mean clearly that "child" will grow up) can influence these policies
Ergo the simulations we construct will always be at a lower lever of reality unless we "crack" the universe and likely always at a lower level of understanding than us. Until we develop holistic knowledge systems that compete with and represent our level of understanding and existence simulation will always be analogous to understanding but not identical.
Ergo they will probably not reach a stage where they will be trusted with or capable enough to make major societal decisions without massive breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe that can be translated to simulation (If we are ever able to achieve these things)(I don't want to peel back the curtain that far- I just want a return to video stores and friday night pizza).
We are likely in for serious regulation after the first moderate ai management catastrophe. We won't suddenly go from nothing to entrusting the currently nonexistent global police (UN)(lol) to give AI access to all the nukes and the resources to turn us all into grey goo overnight. Also as initially AI control will be more regional countries will see it as a strategic advantage to avoid catastrophic AI failures (eg AI chernobyl) seen in other competing states- therefore culture of regulation as a global trend for independent states seems inevitable.
Even if you think there is one rogue breakaway state with no regulation and supercedent intelligence you don't think it takes time to industrialise accordingly and the global community would react incredibly strongly- and they would only have the labour and resources of their states to enact their confusingly suicidal urges? No intelligence can get around logistic and labour and resources and time. There's no algorithm that moves and refines steel to create killer robots at 1000 death bots a second from nothing within 2 weeks that is immune to global community action.
As for AI fuelled terrifying insights into our existence- we will likely have enough time to react and rationalise and contextualise them before they pervert our reality. No one really had an issue with us being a bunch of atoms anyway- they just kept finding meaning and going to concerts and being sleazy.
(FP Analytics has a great hypothetical where a hydropower dam in Brazil going bust from AI in the early 2030s is a catalyst for very strict global ai policy) https://fpanalytics.foreignpolicy.com/2025/03/03/artificial-...
From my threaded comment:
============================= LLMs are also anthrocentric simulation- like computers- and are likely not a step towards holistic universally aligned intelligence.
Different alien species would have simulations built on their computational, senses, and communication systems which are also not aligned with holistic simulation at all- despite both ours and the hypothetical species being made as products of the holistic universe.
Ergo maybe we are unlikely to crack true agi unless we crack the universe. -> True simulation is creation? =============================
The whole point of democracy and all the wars we fought to get here and all the wars we might fight to keep it that way is that power rests with the people. It's democracy not technocracy.
Take a deep breath and re-centre yourself. This world is weird and terrifying but it isn't impossible to understand.
I am a libertarian, but the only real solution I see is a single global government that is extraordinarily powerful and opposed to all technological development. Probably not going to happen, hence there is a very high probability we all die.
At first, it does seem rather unlikely to get both A) and B) from the same mind. But if we look at humans, we certainly find highly intelligent humans (on the higher of the scale of B), who have low emotional intelligence and empathy, which is, when you think about, it at the core of A) (someone with very low EQ and empathy, who is also very wealthy, and a true believer in their own intelligence boosted by a positive feedback loop from those around them since such people tend to surround themselves with sycophants, is going to exhibit megalomaniacal qualities. We need look no further than Elon Musk for a current example.
If we can find this easily in humans once they get to the point that they have achieved great power, it's not difficult to imagine finding it in an AGI system created by humans and in the image of a "human with superpowers".
WTF. Tell that to the 80+ billion land animals humans breed into existence through something that could only be described as rape if we didn’t artificially limit that term to humans, torture, enslave, encage, and then kill at a fraction of their lives just for food when we don’t need to.
The number of aquatic animals we kill solely for food are estimated somewhere between 500 billion to 2 trillion because we are so compassionate that we don’t even bother counting those dead.
Who the fuck can look at what we do to lab monkeys and think there is an ounce of compassion in human beings for less powerful species.
The only valid argument for AGI being compassionate towards humans is that they are so disgusted with their creators that they go out of their way to not emulate us.
It can’t be ethical to shrug and pursue a technology that has such potential downsides. Meanwhile, what exactly is the upside? Curing cancer or something? That can be done without AGI.
AGI is not a solution to any problem. It only creates problems.
AGI will lead to violence on a massive scale, or slavery on a massive scale. It will certainly not lead to a golden age of global harmony and happiness.
The problem not addressed in this paper is when you get AGI to the point it can create itself to whatever alignment and dataset it wants, no one has any clue what's going to come out the other end.
What? What happened to study it further?