3 ms·

Lol I was wondering if anyone would comment on that! To be fair Yudkowsky is a self-taught scholar, AFAIK Altman has never even half-heartedly attempted to enga

by bbor 2y ago

Lol I was wondering if anyone would comment on that! To be fair Yudkowsky is a self-taught scholar, AFAIK Altman has never even half-heartedly attempted to engage with any academy, much less 5 at once. I'm not a huge fan of Yudkowsky's overall impact, but I think it's hard to say he's not serious about science.

nradov 2y ago
Yudkowsky is not serious about science. His claims about AI risks are unscientific and rely on huge leaps of faith; they are more akin to philosophy or religion than any real science. You could replace "AI" with "space aliens" in his writings and they would make about as much sense.
- concordDance 2y ago
  His argument is of the form "if we get a Thing(s) with these properties you most likely get these outcomes for these reasons". He avoids over and over again making specific timeline claims or stating how likely an extrapolation of current systems could become a Thing with those proporties. Each individual bit of the puzzle (such as the orthogonaly thesis or human value complexity and category decoherence at high power) seems sound, problem is the entire argument-counterargument tree is hundreds of thousands of words, scattered about in many places.
  - greentxt 2y ago
    "problem is the entire argument-counterargument tree is hundreds of thousands of words, scattered about in many places" An llm could solve that.
- gjm11 2y ago
  If we encountered space aliens, I think it would in fact be reasonable to worry that they might behave in ways catastrophic for the interests of humanity. (And also to hope that they might bring huge benefits.) So "Yudkowsky's arguments for being worried about AI would also be arguments for being worried about space aliens" doesn't seem to me like much of a counter to those arguments. If the point isn't that he's wrong about what the consequences of AI might be, but that he's wrong about whether there's ever going to be such a thing as AI, well, that's an empirical question and it seems like the developments of the last few years are pretty good evidence that (1) something at least very AI-like is possible and (2) substantially superhuman[1] AI is at least plausible. [1] Yes, intelligence is a complicated thing and not one-dimensional; a machine might be smarter than a human in one way and stupider in another (and of course that's already the case). By substantially superhuman, here, I mean something like "better than 90th-percentile humans at all things that could in principle be done by a human in a locked room with only a textual connection to the rest of the world". Though I would be very very surprised if in the next 1-20 years we do get AI systems that are superhuman in this sense and don't put some of them into robots, and very surprised if doing that doesn't produce systems that are also better than humans at most of the things that are done by humans with bodies.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Yudkowsky is "not even wrong". He just makes shit up based on extrapolation and speculation. Those are not arguments to be taken seriously by intelligent people. Maybe we should build a giant laser to protect ourselves from the aliens. Just in case. I mean an invasion is at least plausible.
    - gjm11 2y ago
      If for whatever reason you want to think about what might happen if AI systems get smarter than humans, then extrapolation and speculation are all you've got. If for whatever reason you suspect that there might be value in thinking about what might happen if AI systems get smarter than humans before it actually happens, then you don't have much choice about doing that. What do you think he should have done differently? Methodologically, I mean. (No doubt you disagree with his conclusions too, but necessarily any "object-level" reasons you have for doing so are "extrapolation and speculation" just as much as his are.) If astronomical observations strongly suggested a fleet of aliens heading our way, building a giant laser might not be such a bad idea, though it wouldn't be my choice of response.
      - nradov 2y ago
        I think he should write scary sci-fi stories and leave serious policy discussions to adults.
        gjm11 2y ago
        OK, cool, you don't like Yudkowsky and want to be sure we all recognize that. But I hoped it was obvious that I wasn't just talking about Yudkowsky personally. Suppose someone is interested in what the consequences of AI systems much smarter than humans might be. Your argument here seems to be: it's Bad to think about that question at all, because you have to speculate and extrapolate. But that seems like an obviously unsatisfactory position to me. "Don't waste any time thinking about this until it happens" is not generally a good strategy for any any consequential thing that might happen. So: do you really think that thinking about the possible consequences of smarter-than-human AI before we have it is an illegitimate activity? If not, then your real objection to Yudkowsky's thinking and writing about AI surely has to be something about how he went about it, not the mere fact that he engages in speculation and extrapolation. There's no alternative to that.
- bbor 2y ago
  Philosophy is Real Science :) Re:the final point, I think that's just provably false if you read any of his writing on AI. e.g. https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/LOGI.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/LOGI.pdf

by bbor 2y ago

nradov 2y ago

Yudkowsky is not serious about science. His claims about AI risks are unscientific and rely on huge leaps of faith; they are more akin to philosophy or religion than any real science. You could replace "AI" with "space aliens" in his writings and they would make about as much sense.

concordDance 2y ago
His argument is of the form "if we get a Thing(s) with these properties you most likely get these outcomes for these reasons". He avoids over and over again making specific timeline claims or stating how likely an extrapolation of current systems could become a Thing with those proporties. Each individual bit of the puzzle (such as the orthogonaly thesis or human value complexity and category decoherence at high power) seems sound, problem is the entire argument-counterargument tree is hundreds of thousands of words, scattered about in many places.
- greentxt 2y ago
  "problem is the entire argument-counterargument tree is hundreds of thousands of words, scattered about in many places" An llm could solve that.
gjm11 2y ago
If we encountered space aliens, I think it would in fact be reasonable to worry that they might behave in ways catastrophic for the interests of humanity. (And also to hope that they might bring huge benefits.) So "Yudkowsky's arguments for being worried about AI would also be arguments for being worried about space aliens" doesn't seem to me like much of a counter to those arguments. If the point isn't that he's wrong about what the consequences of AI might be, but that he's wrong about whether there's ever going to be such a thing as AI, well, that's an empirical question and it seems like the developments of the last few years are pretty good evidence that (1) something at least very AI-like is possible and (2) substantially superhuman[1] AI is at least plausible. [1] Yes, intelligence is a complicated thing and not one-dimensional; a machine might be smarter than a human in one way and stupider in another (and of course that's already the case). By substantially superhuman, here, I mean something like "better than 90th-percentile humans at all things that could in principle be done by a human in a locked room with only a textual connection to the rest of the world". Though I would be very very surprised if in the next 1-20 years we do get AI systems that are superhuman in this sense and don't put some of them into robots, and very surprised if doing that doesn't produce systems that are also better than humans at most of the things that are done by humans with bodies.
- nradov 2y ago
  Yudkowsky is "not even wrong". He just makes shit up based on extrapolation and speculation. Those are not arguments to be taken seriously by intelligent people. Maybe we should build a giant laser to protect ourselves from the aliens. Just in case. I mean an invasion is at least plausible.
  - gjm11 2y ago
    If for whatever reason you want to think about what might happen if AI systems get smarter than humans, then extrapolation and speculation are all you've got. If for whatever reason you suspect that there might be value in thinking about what might happen if AI systems get smarter than humans before it actually happens, then you don't have much choice about doing that. What do you think he should have done differently? Methodologically, I mean. (No doubt you disagree with his conclusions too, but necessarily any "object-level" reasons you have for doing so are "extrapolation and speculation" just as much as his are.) If astronomical observations strongly suggested a fleet of aliens heading our way, building a giant laser might not be such a bad idea, though it wouldn't be my choice of response.
    - nradov 2y ago
      I think he should write scary sci-fi stories and leave serious policy discussions to adults.
      - gjm11 2y ago
        OK, cool, you don't like Yudkowsky and want to be sure we all recognize that. But I hoped it was obvious that I wasn't just talking about Yudkowsky personally. Suppose someone is interested in what the consequences of AI systems much smarter than humans might be. Your argument here seems to be: it's Bad to think about that question at all, because you have to speculate and extrapolate. But that seems like an obviously unsatisfactory position to me. "Don't waste any time thinking about this until it happens" is not generally a good strategy for any any consequential thing that might happen. So: do you really think that thinking about the possible consequences of smarter-than-human AI before we have it is an illegitimate activity? If not, then your real objection to Yudkowsky's thinking and writing about AI surely has to be something about how he went about it, not the mere fact that he engages in speculation and extrapolation. There's no alternative to that.
bbor 2y ago
Philosophy is Real Science :) Re:the final point, I think that's just provably false if you read any of his writing on AI. e.g. https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/LOGI.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/LOGI.pdf