3 ms·

They're not stopping the tide, they are preparing for it - as I suggested. The tide is still happening, it just isn't causing the flooding. So in that sense we

They're not stopping the tide, they are preparing for it - as I suggested. The tide is still happening, it just isn't causing the flooding. So in that sense we agree. Let's be like he Dutch. Let's realize the coming tide and build defenses against it.

FeepingCreature 1y ago
They are kinda literally stopping the tide coming in though. They're preparing for it by blocking it off completely. That is a thing that humans can do if they want it enough.
- lucumo 1y ago
  > They're preparing for it by blocking it off completely. No we don't. Quite the opposite. Several dams have been made into movable mechanic contraptions precisely to NOT stop the tide coming in. A lot of the water management is living with the water, not fighting it. Shore replenishment and strengthening is done by dropping sand in strategic locations and letting the water take care of dumping it in the right spot. Before big dredgers, the tide was used to flush sand out of harbours using big flushing basins. Big canals have been dug for better shipping. Big and small ships sailed and still sail on the waters to trade with the world. A lot of our riches come from the sea and the rivers. The water is a danger and a tool. It's not stopped, only redirected and often put to good use. Throughout Dutch history, those who worked with the water generally have done well. And similarly, some places really suffered after the water was redirected away from them. Fisher folk lost their livelihoods, cities lost access to trade, some land literally evaporated when it got too dry, a lot of land shrunk when water was removed, biodiversity dropped... Anyway, if you want to use the Dutch waters as a metaphor for technological innovations, the lesson will not be that the obvious answer is to block it. The lesson will be to accept it, to use it, to gain riches through it: to live with it.
  - FeepingCreature 1y ago
    The difference is that right now we're looking at a giant onrushing wave and we're considering maybe building a few dinghies to "ride it out". Please understand. We're not in a position where we have sophisticated infrastructure to carefully control AI development. We have nothing, and the waves are getting bigger every few months. You're in a position where you're safe enough (after centuries of labor!) that you can decide to not block some amount of incoming water. That is not where we are at with AI. There is no dike.
    - lucumo 1y ago
      > Please understand. I understand that you're afraid. I'm not. But that's not what I was responding to. I was just pointing out that your comparison to the Dutch does not bolster your argument, but instead supports the opposite view.
      - FeepingCreature 1y ago
        I agree that what I said was literally false. I think the comparison to the Dutch still bolsters my view with the added context. When you understand tides and local ecosystems and have flood level forecasting, you can choose to operate dikes in a way that allows tidal flow while blunting floods. However, we're currently in a position where in the analogy, we have no dike and people are arguing that dikes are impossible and anyway who's to say that the incoming flood won't be good for houses? In that situation, the first thing you need to do is get the incoming masses of water under control, and that's a thing that humans can do and it's the thing you did. (Unless I'm wrong?) edit: Hang on, isn't Amsterdam below zero? How is that not blocking tidal flow effectively completely? My point is just that tides are in the feasible range of human engineering, whether that's a good idea or not. Pragmatic management is not the same thing as unconditional surrender, which the other comment was advocating on basis of infeasibility, which is doubly wrong.
- stillpointlab 1y ago
  As the other commenter noted, you are simply wrong about that. We control the effects the tide has on us, not the tide itself. But let me offer you a false dichotomy for the purposes of argument: 1. You spend your efforts preventing the emergence of AI 2. You spend your efforts creating conditions for the harmonious co-existence of AI and humanity It's your choice.
  - FeepingCreature 1y ago
    As things stand, 2 is impossible without 1. There simply is not enough time to figure out safe coexistence. These are not projects of equal difficulty- 1 is enormously easier than 2. And 1 is still a global effort!
    - stillpointlab 1y ago
      You have no evidence for any of your claims (either for "impossibility" or degree of difficulty) and I strongly doubt your rationalization will stand the test of validation in reality. You are also completely moving the goal posts. My original comment was about the hubris of man to prevent processes that operate at a scale beyond his means. The processes that are driving forward the march towards AI are beyond your ability to stop. And now you are arguing (again, with no evidence) the relative difficulty of slowing it down (a much weaker claim compared to stopping it) vs. contributing to safe co-existence. But in the interest of finding some common ground let me point out: attempting to slow it down is actually getting on board to my project (although, in a way I think is ineffective). It starts with accepting that it can't be prevented and choosing a way to contribute to safe coexistence by providing enough time to figure it out.
      - FeepingCreature 1y ago
        Man's scale is Earth. You know, I think you have no evidence for any of your claims of "impossibility" either. And I'd argue there's a ton of counterevidence where man, completely ignoring how impossible that's supposed to be, effects change on a global scale. You're comparing two dissimilar things. On the one hand slowing it down (which contrary to your claim that I'm moving the goalpost, is at sufficient investment effectively equal to stopping it), on the other, "contributing" to safe co-existence, which is trivially achieved by literally doing anything. I'm telling you that if we merely "contribute" to safe co-existence, we all die. The standard, and it really is the standard in any other field, is proving safe coexistence to a reasonable standard. Which should hopefully make clear where the difficulty lies: we have nothing. Even with all the interpretability research, and I'm not slagging interpretability, this field is in its absolute infancy. "It can't be prevented" simply erases the most important distinction: if we get ASI tomorrow, we're in a fundamentally different position than if we get ASI in 50 years after a heroic global effort to work out safety, interpretability, guidance and morality.

FeepingCreature 1y ago

They are kinda literally stopping the tide coming in though. They're preparing for it by blocking it off completely. That is a thing that humans can do if they want it enough.

lucumo 1y ago
> They're preparing for it by blocking it off completely. No we don't. Quite the opposite. Several dams have been made into movable mechanic contraptions precisely to NOT stop the tide coming in. A lot of the water management is living with the water, not fighting it. Shore replenishment and strengthening is done by dropping sand in strategic locations and letting the water take care of dumping it in the right spot. Before big dredgers, the tide was used to flush sand out of harbours using big flushing basins. Big canals have been dug for better shipping. Big and small ships sailed and still sail on the waters to trade with the world. A lot of our riches come from the sea and the rivers. The water is a danger and a tool. It's not stopped, only redirected and often put to good use. Throughout Dutch history, those who worked with the water generally have done well. And similarly, some places really suffered after the water was redirected away from them. Fisher folk lost their livelihoods, cities lost access to trade, some land literally evaporated when it got too dry, a lot of land shrunk when water was removed, biodiversity dropped... Anyway, if you want to use the Dutch waters as a metaphor for technological innovations, the lesson will not be that the obvious answer is to block it. The lesson will be to accept it, to use it, to gain riches through it: to live with it.
- FeepingCreature 1y ago
  The difference is that right now we're looking at a giant onrushing wave and we're considering maybe building a few dinghies to "ride it out". Please understand. We're not in a position where we have sophisticated infrastructure to carefully control AI development. We have nothing, and the waves are getting bigger every few months. You're in a position where you're safe enough (after centuries of labor!) that you can decide to not block some amount of incoming water. That is not where we are at with AI. There is no dike.
  - lucumo 1y ago
    > Please understand. I understand that you're afraid. I'm not. But that's not what I was responding to. I was just pointing out that your comparison to the Dutch does not bolster your argument, but instead supports the opposite view.
    - FeepingCreature 1y ago
      I agree that what I said was literally false. I think the comparison to the Dutch still bolsters my view with the added context. When you understand tides and local ecosystems and have flood level forecasting, you can choose to operate dikes in a way that allows tidal flow while blunting floods. However, we're currently in a position where in the analogy, we have no dike and people are arguing that dikes are impossible and anyway who's to say that the incoming flood won't be good for houses? In that situation, the first thing you need to do is get the incoming masses of water under control, and that's a thing that humans can do and it's the thing you did. (Unless I'm wrong?) edit: Hang on, isn't Amsterdam below zero? How is that not blocking tidal flow effectively completely? My point is just that tides are in the feasible range of human engineering, whether that's a good idea or not. Pragmatic management is not the same thing as unconditional surrender, which the other comment was advocating on basis of infeasibility, which is doubly wrong.
stillpointlab 1y ago
As the other commenter noted, you are simply wrong about that. We control the effects the tide has on us, not the tide itself. But let me offer you a false dichotomy for the purposes of argument: 1. You spend your efforts preventing the emergence of AI 2. You spend your efforts creating conditions for the harmonious co-existence of AI and humanity It's your choice.
- FeepingCreature 1y ago
  As things stand, 2 is impossible without 1. There simply is not enough time to figure out safe coexistence. These are not projects of equal difficulty- 1 is enormously easier than 2. And 1 is still a global effort!
  - stillpointlab 1y ago
    You have no evidence for any of your claims (either for "impossibility" or degree of difficulty) and I strongly doubt your rationalization will stand the test of validation in reality. You are also completely moving the goal posts. My original comment was about the hubris of man to prevent processes that operate at a scale beyond his means. The processes that are driving forward the march towards AI are beyond your ability to stop. And now you are arguing (again, with no evidence) the relative difficulty of slowing it down (a much weaker claim compared to stopping it) vs. contributing to safe co-existence. But in the interest of finding some common ground let me point out: attempting to slow it down is actually getting on board to my project (although, in a way I think is ineffective). It starts with accepting that it can't be prevented and choosing a way to contribute to safe coexistence by providing enough time to figure it out.
    - FeepingCreature 1y ago
      Man's scale is Earth. You know, I think you have no evidence for any of your claims of "impossibility" either. And I'd argue there's a ton of counterevidence where man, completely ignoring how impossible that's supposed to be, effects change on a global scale. You're comparing two dissimilar things. On the one hand slowing it down (which contrary to your claim that I'm moving the goalpost, is at sufficient investment effectively equal to stopping it), on the other, "contributing" to safe co-existence, which is trivially achieved by literally doing anything. I'm telling you that if we merely "contribute" to safe co-existence, we all die. The standard, and it really is the standard in any other field, is proving safe coexistence to a reasonable standard. Which should hopefully make clear where the difficulty lies: we have nothing. Even with all the interpretability research, and I'm not slagging interpretability, this field is in its absolute infancy. "It can't be prevented" simply erases the most important distinction: if we get ASI tomorrow, we're in a fundamentally different position than if we get ASI in 50 years after a heroic global effort to work out safety, interpretability, guidance and morality.