6 ms·

I feel like if I actually believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and that the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers, I'd spend

by Imnimo 4y ago

I feel like if I actually believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and that the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers, I'd spend a lot more time planning how to bomb data centers and a lot less time curating Shoggoth memes on my web forum. On the other hand, if I were more concerned with self-aggrandizement, writing doomsaying thinkpieces for Time is exactly what I'd spend my time on.

dspeyer 4y ago
Eliezer does not curate any web forum. He says he is not planning to bomb any data centers, but he's also said that if he were planning to bomb data centers, he'd lie about it in public, so...
BenPace 4y ago
Just because everything is on the line does not mean it is okay to kill people. Please try to ask yourself what you would do if you were an ethical person who thought human extinction was imminent.
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  >Just because everything is on the line does not mean it is okay to kill people Why?
  - BenPace 4y ago
    Oops, I misread the original context, to be clear I think that state-managed violence is okay for things around nukes and AI and so on. I was referring to individual acts of terrorism which seem not okay to me (in part because they seem not that likely to help).
Analemma_ 4y ago
These types of arguments-- "if you actually believed X, you'd be doing Y"-- always ring false to me. If you genuinely believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers and you were a normal, functional human being who did not want to bomb data centers, you'd probably sink into hopeless depression. Which is, in fact, exactly what Eliezer has done - if you talk to anyone around him, it's common knowledge that he has been despondent for the past ~12 months or so. It certainly does not seem like a self-aggrandizement tactic.
- Imnimo 4y ago
  I think if I seriously thought all biological life was about to be destroyed, I could get over my distaste for bombing data centers.
  - Analemma_ 4y ago
    No, that doesn't follow. It's possible to think that all biological life was about to be destroyed but also believe some combination of 1) it's hopeless to bomb data centers because I'd quickly be stopped by the authorities and remaining data centers would beef up security, and nothing would be accomplished, 2) in the past, other people who have had beliefs of this sort ("violence is the only answer") have been wrong and I should not act on them even if I am sure "this time is different", because those other people also thought this time was different, and 3) just having a deeply ethically-ingrained prohibition against violence like this which is not easy to overcome through intellectual rationalization alone. These are not mutually exclusive, and if you did believe all of them at once, I think it's reasonable to assume you'd be in a serious depressive spiral.
    - Imnimo 4y ago
      Israel believes that Iran having a nuclear weapon is an existential threat. What do they do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nucle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iran_explosions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iran_explosions I find it hard to believe that Yudkowsky et al. think we're facing a threat that is many times greater in magnitude, and yet are completely unwilling to act. Here's what he advocates for in the article: >If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike. >Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs. Does this sound like someone who has a deeply ethically-ingrained prohibition against violence?
antibasilisk 4y ago
>I feel like if I actually believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and that the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers, I'd spend a lot more time planning how to bomb data centers and a lot less time curating Shoggoth memes on my web forum Alternatively, perhaps the author is proposing a less violent solution to avoid the inevitable escalation. Unlike cartoons, in real life people don't give a wordy monologues revealing their plan. The Unabomber did not give any warning.
- Imnimo 4y ago
  The author's proposed solution is: Shut down all the large GPU clusters (the large computer farms where the most powerful AIs are refined). Shut down all the large training runs. Put a ceiling on how much computing power anyone is allowed to use in training an AI system, and move it downward over the coming years to compensate for more efficient training algorithms. No exceptions for governments and militaries. Make immediate multinational agreements to prevent the prohibited activities from moving elsewhere. Track all GPUs sold. If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike. How is this less violent than bombing data centers? His proposal is literally "bomb datacenters plus a bunch of other stuff".
  - antibasilisk 4y ago
    He is talking about interstate warfare. I am talking about the almost inevitable organized terrorism that we're going to see if people start identifying this as an imminent threat to their survival. I think turning America into Syria is a bit more violent than iran and israel blowing up each other's stuff.
    - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
      >He is talking about interstate warfare. "Frame nothing as a conflict between national interests" "this, is not a policy but a fact of nature." "[be] willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes" idk
scrawl 4y ago
if you had a major concern that you felt many people a) weren't aware of, or b) were aware of but not treating seriously, and you had the resources to voice your concerns in a major publication like Time, would you not do that?
sullyj3 4y ago
Unilateral terrorism seems like a great way to get the rest of the planet to unite against you, which is why he advocates for data-center bombing only in circumstances where earth has already coordinated to establish an international order banning them.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  The real world is a lot messier than the TV version.
circuit10 4y ago
Bombing data centres would make people see the whole thing as a terrorist organisation which would make it way worse
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
If you believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and that the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers, and you knew that there were far more data centers than you personally could bomb, what would you do?
- Imnimo 4y ago
  Bomb one. Tell my legion of LessWrong followers to do the same. The number I can personally bomb is irrelevant.
mitthrowaway2 4y ago
Bombing data centers would be really ineffective. How many data centers do you think you could take down before you got caught? How much time would that really set back AI training? Plus it would ensure that nobody respectable ever associates with your cause, whether they privately agree with it or not. Between that and advocating for an international treaty that treats GPUs the way the world currently treats plutonium? I think the latter has a higher chance of success, however small it may be.

by Imnimo 4y ago

dspeyer 4y ago

Eliezer does not curate any web forum. He says he is not planning to bomb any data centers, but he's also said that if he were planning to bomb data centers, he'd lie about it in public, so...

BenPace 4y ago

Just because everything is on the line does not mean it is okay to kill people. Please try to ask yourself what you would do if you were an ethical person who thought human extinction was imminent.

antibasilisk 4y ago
>Just because everything is on the line does not mean it is okay to kill people Why?
- BenPace 4y ago
  Oops, I misread the original context, to be clear I think that state-managed violence is okay for things around nukes and AI and so on. I was referring to individual acts of terrorism which seem not okay to me (in part because they seem not that likely to help).

Analemma_ 4y ago

These types of arguments-- "if you actually believed X, you'd be doing Y"-- always ring false to me. If you genuinely believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers and you were a normal, functional human being who did not want to bomb data centers, you'd probably sink into hopeless depression. Which is, in fact, exactly what Eliezer has done - if you talk to anyone around him, it's common knowledge that he has been despondent for the past ~12 months or so. It certainly does not seem like a self-aggrandizement tactic.

Imnimo 4y ago
I think if I seriously thought all biological life was about to be destroyed, I could get over my distaste for bombing data centers.
- Analemma_ 4y ago
  No, that doesn't follow. It's possible to think that all biological life was about to be destroyed but also believe some combination of 1) it's hopeless to bomb data centers because I'd quickly be stopped by the authorities and remaining data centers would beef up security, and nothing would be accomplished, 2) in the past, other people who have had beliefs of this sort ("violence is the only answer") have been wrong and I should not act on them even if I am sure "this time is different", because those other people also thought this time was different, and 3) just having a deeply ethically-ingrained prohibition against violence like this which is not easy to overcome through intellectual rationalization alone. These are not mutually exclusive, and if you did believe all of them at once, I think it's reasonable to assume you'd be in a serious depressive spiral.
  - Imnimo 4y ago
    Israel believes that Iran having a nuclear weapon is an existential threat. What do they do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nucle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iran_explosions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iran_explosions I find it hard to believe that Yudkowsky et al. think we're facing a threat that is many times greater in magnitude, and yet are completely unwilling to act. Here's what he advocates for in the article: >If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike. >Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs. Does this sound like someone who has a deeply ethically-ingrained prohibition against violence?

antibasilisk 4y ago

>I feel like if I actually believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and that the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers, I'd spend a lot more time planning how to bomb data centers and a lot less time curating Shoggoth memes on my web forum Alternatively, perhaps the author is proposing a less violent solution to avoid the inevitable escalation. Unlike cartoons, in real life people don't give a wordy monologues revealing their plan. The Unabomber did not give any warning.

Imnimo 4y ago
The author's proposed solution is: Shut down all the large GPU clusters (the large computer farms where the most powerful AIs are refined). Shut down all the large training runs. Put a ceiling on how much computing power anyone is allowed to use in training an AI system, and move it downward over the coming years to compensate for more efficient training algorithms. No exceptions for governments and militaries. Make immediate multinational agreements to prevent the prohibited activities from moving elsewhere. Track all GPUs sold. If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike. How is this less violent than bombing data centers? His proposal is literally "bomb datacenters plus a bunch of other stuff".
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  He is talking about interstate warfare. I am talking about the almost inevitable organized terrorism that we're going to see if people start identifying this as an imminent threat to their survival. I think turning America into Syria is a bit more violent than iran and israel blowing up each other's stuff.
  - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
    >He is talking about interstate warfare. "Frame nothing as a conflict between national interests" "this, is not a policy but a fact of nature." "[be] willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes" idk

scrawl 4y ago

if you had a major concern that you felt many people a) weren't aware of, or b) were aware of but not treating seriously, and you had the resources to voice your concerns in a major publication like Time, would you not do that?

sullyj3 4y ago

Unilateral terrorism seems like a great way to get the rest of the planet to unite against you, which is why he advocates for data-center bombing only in circumstances where earth has already coordinated to establish an international order banning them.

anigbrowl 4y ago
The real world is a lot messier than the TV version.

circuit10 4y ago

Bombing data centres would make people see the whole thing as a terrorist organisation which would make it way worse

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

If you believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and that the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers, and you knew that there were far more data centers than you personally could bomb, what would you do?

Imnimo 4y ago
Bomb one. Tell my legion of LessWrong followers to do the same. The number I can personally bomb is irrelevant.

mitthrowaway2 4y ago

Bombing data centers would be really ineffective. How many data centers do you think you could take down before you got caught? How much time would that really set back AI training? Plus it would ensure that nobody respectable ever associates with your cause, whether they privately agree with it or not. Between that and advocating for an international treaty that treats GPUs the way the world currently treats plutonium? I think the latter has a higher chance of success, however small it may be.