3 ms·

As other commenters point out, the end is not the same as the means. Simple agendas, when followed with sufficient vigor, can sometimes cause enormous amounts o

As other commenters point out, the end is not the same as the means. Simple agendas, when followed with sufficient vigor, can sometimes cause enormous amounts of harm. I’ve recently encountered a number of posts from this community that are filled with despair about the speed at which AI is progressing, and predict the end of humanity on a short timeline. Some are written by very well-known figures in the community. Other adjacent figures have mooted the idea that a police state might be the only way to control certain technologies. It’s reasonable to ask whether existential terror might lead some in this community to make rash decisions. It’s also very concerning because these existential fears can distract people from thinking about other, but perhaps more relevant concerns. Imagine that AI doesn’t resist human orders, but the people giving the orders use it to radically restructure our society in ways that make our current economic system incompatible with human flourishing: is this community concerned about that (perhaps very realistic) outcome, or do their interests end when AI is compliant with its masters?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dwohnitmok 4y ago
> is this community concerned about that (perhaps very realistic) outcome, or do their interests end when AI is compliant with its masters? The short of it is yes. As far as I'm aware the long-term hope in the Less Wrong community or more generally the AI safety community is that AI becomes available for everyone and under the control of everyone. But the first, paramount step is to make sure it doesn't destroy everything and recognize that such a guarantee doesn't come for free, but rather requires an enormous amount of work and coordination.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  my original question was what realm of solutions are they advocating I don't take lightly to suggestions that we enact police states, highly authoritarian government controls, and other state or capital extremes that I've seen that community / the alignment folks advocate for as you can find when you look past their concern and fears
  - dwohnitmok 4y ago
    > my original question was what realm of solutions are they advocating They don't really have an answer, which is why they're freaking out. > I don't take lightly to suggestions that we enact police states, highly authoritarian government controls, and other state or capital extremes that I've seen that community / the alignment folks advocate for as you can find when you look past their concern and fears What comments are you thinking of? And what solution would you advocate for in a scenario where creating superhuman AGI that kills everyone is much easier (and probably the default) than creating superhuman AGI that doesn't (basically how do you avoid prisoner's dilemma-esque scenarios given how much power AGI gives its makers right before it kills them)?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dwohnitmok 4y ago

> is this community concerned about that (perhaps very realistic) outcome, or do their interests end when AI is compliant with its masters? The short of it is yes. As far as I'm aware the long-term hope in the Less Wrong community or more generally the AI safety community is that AI becomes available for everyone and under the control of everyone. But the first, paramount step is to make sure it doesn't destroy everything and recognize that such a guarantee doesn't come for free, but rather requires an enormous amount of work and coordination.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
my original question was what realm of solutions are they advocating I don't take lightly to suggestions that we enact police states, highly authoritarian government controls, and other state or capital extremes that I've seen that community / the alignment folks advocate for as you can find when you look past their concern and fears
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  > my original question was what realm of solutions are they advocating They don't really have an answer, which is why they're freaking out. > I don't take lightly to suggestions that we enact police states, highly authoritarian government controls, and other state or capital extremes that I've seen that community / the alignment folks advocate for as you can find when you look past their concern and fears What comments are you thinking of? And what solution would you advocate for in a scenario where creating superhuman AGI that kills everyone is much easier (and probably the default) than creating superhuman AGI that doesn't (basically how do you avoid prisoner's dilemma-esque scenarios given how much power AGI gives its makers right before it kills them)?