BC POLITICS
Saved by @CodyyyGardner

My catch all thread for this discussion of AI risk in relation to Critical Rationalism, to summarize what's happened so far and how to go forward, from here.

 I started by simply stating that I thought that the arguments that I had heard so far don't hold up, and seeing if anyone was interested in going into it in depth with me.

https://t.co/c62D4oQccR
So far, a few people have engaged pretty extensively with me, for instance, scheduling video calls to talk about some of the stuff, or long private chats.

(Links to some of those that are public at the bottom of the thread.)
But in addition to that, there has been a much more sprawling conversation happening on twitter, involving a much larger number of people.
Having talked to a number of people, I then offered a paraphrase of the basic counter that I was hearing from people of the Crit Rat persuasion.

https://t.co/qEFxP7ia8u
Folks offered some nit-picks, as I requested, but unless I missed some, no one objected to this as a good high level summary of the argument for why AI risk is not a concern (or no more of a concern than that of "unaligned people").
I spent a few days and wrote up a counter-counter augment, stating why I thought the that story doesn't actually hold up.

https://t.co/3hXMyBHdXh

The very short version:

1. Criticism of goals is always in terms of other goals
2. There are multiple stable equilibria in the space of goal structures, because agents generally prefer to keep whatever terminal goals they have. And because of this, there is path-dependency in goal structures.
3. AGIs will start from different "seed goals" than humans, and therefore reach different goal equilibria than humans and human cultures do, even if AGIs are criticizing and improving their goals.
My hope is, that in outlining how _I_ think goal criticism works, folks who think I'm wrong can outline an alternative story for how it works instead, that doesn't lead to doom.
Multiple people requested that I write up the positive case for AI doom (not just a counter-counter argument).

So, after taking into consideration threads from the previous document, and my conversations with people, I wrote up a second document, in which I outline...
why I expect AGIs to be hostile to humans, starting from very general principles.

https://t.co/9HmQ6a2S0j
The basic argument is:

1. Conflict is common, and violence is the default solution to conflict. Non-violent solutions are found only when one of two conditions obtain for agents in conflict, either non-violence is less costly than violence, or the agents...
...intrinsically care about the well being of the other agents in conflict.
2. For sufficiently advanced AGIs, violence will not be cheaper than non-violence.
3. By default, there are strong reasons to think that AGIs won't intrinsically care about human beings.
Therefore, we should expect sufficiently advanced AGIs to be hostile to humans.
This second essay, is, in my opinion, somewhat crisper, and less hand-wavy, so it might be a better place to start. I'm not sure.
Some things that would be helpful / interesting for me, going forward in this conversation:

1) Presuming you disagree with me about the conclusion, I would like to know which specific logical link in the "on hostility" argument doesn't hold.
2) Alternatively, I am super interested in if anyone has an alternative account of goal criticism that doesn't entail multiple equilibria in goal-structure space, so that all agents converge to the same morality in the limit.
(An account that is detailed enough that we can work through examples together, and I can see how we get the convergence in the limit.)
3) If folks have counterarguments that don't fit neatly into either of those frames, that also sounds great.

However, I request that you first paraphrase my counter-counterargument to my satisfaction, before offering third order counter arguments.
That is, I want to make sure that we're all on the same page about what the argument I'm making IS, before trying to refute and/or defend it.
I would be exited if people wrote posts, for those things, and am likewise excited to meet with people on calls for 1, 2, or 3.
There are also a bunch of other threads about Bayesianism and Universality and the technical nature of an explanation and the foundation of epistemology, that are also weaving in and out here.
I'm currently treating those as separate threads until they prove themselves relevant to this particular discussion on AI risk.
I also don't know what's most interesting to other people, in this space. Feel free to drop comments saying what YOU'RE hoping for.
Some public, in-depth conversations:

With @ella_hoeppner (Sorry about the volume differential. I think I'm just too loud : / )

https://t.co/DUvMi6wr6r
With @DorfGinger

https://t.co/slxXeDsAlo

More from Eli Tyre

Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
I was reading something that suggested that trauma "tries" to spread itself. ie that the reason why intergenerational trauma is a thing is that the traumatized part in a parent will take action to recreate that trauma in the child.

This model puts the emphasis on the the parent's side: the trauma is actively "trying" to spread.

This is in contrast to my previous (hypothetical) model for IGT, which puts the emphasis on the child's side: kids are sponges that are absorbing huge amounts of info, including via very subtle channels. So they learn the unconscious reactions of the people around them.

(I say "hypothetical", because all while this sort of thing is in my hypothesis space, I haven't seen clear enough evidence that intergenerational trauma is a meaningful category that I solidly believe it is real.

More like, "here's a story for how this could work.")

On first glance, I was skeptical of this "active trauma" story.

Why on earth would trauma be agenty, in that way? It sounds like too much to swallow.
CULTURE
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
@JeffLadish I think because the reward structure of being a bio-ethicist rewards saying level-headed sounding, cautious-sounding, conventional wisdom?

Though I'm not sure why that is.

I guess if you want to radically improve the world, you mostly don't go into a field that is about opining on other people's work, you go into something like Engineering and do the work?

I note that Nick Bostrom is what a Bioethicist should be: he thinks hard about tradeoffs and risks, and crystalizes concepts like the Unilateralist's curse and black ball technologies.

But this is starting from a place of "The world could be vastly better. How do we get there?"

I don't know why bioethics doesn't look more like a field of (less smart) Bostroms.

I guess because everyone's disgust reactions are triggered by the actually good proposals, and in order to make those proposals the consensus of the field a lot of people have to bite the bullet and stick their neck out saying "I know this sounds crazy / absurd / vaguely evil...
SOCIETY
Advertisement
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
There's a particular kind of romantic partnership, with a certain sort of person, that I've wanted since I became a self-aware, directed agent at around age 15.

Empirically, this kind of relationship has been hard to achieve. It hasn't worked out yet, at least.

And this sometimes leaves me wondering if my standards are unreasonable.

In years past that desire was often very alive.

These days, I'm rarely directly or viscerally in contact with it.

I sometimes contemplate aiming for some other kind of romantic and/or sexual relationship instead. In part because I might be more effective if I...I don't know, got laid more? But that's not really the thing. More like, if I had someone around whom I could regularly relax.

But mostly, I don't pursue those alternative relationship-setups out of a sense of something like loyalty to myself + a vague sense of wrongness and/or sadness about it. It often feels like giving up or giving in.

[I might elaborate on the wrongness sometime.]
FOR LATER READ
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
CritRats!

I think AI risk is a real existential concern, and I claim that the CritRat counterarguments that I've heard so far (keywords: universality, person, moral knowledge, education, etc.) don't hold up.

Anyone want to hash this out with


For instance, while I heartily agree with lots of what is said in this video, I don't think that the conclusion about how to prevent (the bad kind of) human extinction, with regard to AGI, follows.

There are a number of reasons to think that AGI will be more dangerous than most people are, despite both people and AGIs being qualitatively the same sort of thing (explanatory knowledge-creating entities).

And, I maintain, that because of practical/quantitative (not fundamental/qualitative) differences, the development of AGI / TAI is very likely to destroy the world, by default.

(I'm not clear on exactly how much disagreement there is. In the video above, Deutsch says "Building an AGI with perverse emotions that lead it to immoral actions would be a crime."
SOCIETY
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
I know some people who seem (to me) more concerned with receiving VALIDATION for their mental health issues than solving them.

They seem to care most about other people BELIEVING their problems are real.

I'm curious about this.

Like, it's more important to them that people know how debilitating their anxiety is, than to overcome the anxiety.

Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."

Or they want people buy into the narrative that they've been traumatized, and might be something like offended if someone minimizes that.

What do we make of this?

1. One possibility is that if solving the problems seems hopeless or even just really hard, you need external support to be able to cope.

If no one cuts you slack because of your mental health stuff, maybe you're in a really bad place, so you need people to believe you.
HEALTH

More from Politics

David Burney
David Burney
@jdburney1
What does "patriots in control" mean?
What would that "look like" in reality?


So a massive adult film star in all his glory is included in an official FBI government filing


Hunter Biden's book is categorized as "Chinese


TIME admits to "conspiracy" to "not rig, rather


A "pillow guy" has military-grade intercepts detailing the IP addresses and device MAC IDs of EVERY incursion into every county in the
POLITICS
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Alexandria Ocasio-Cort...
@Ocasio2018
All the challenges to Leader Pelosi are coming from her right, in an apparent effort to make the party even more conservative and bent toward corporate interests.

Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.


I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.

But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.

Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.

I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
POLITICS
Advertisement
Alexander
Alexander
@37paday
1/ Imagine that as soon as the referendum result the EU announced that it was looking forward to the end of free movement of UK citizens in the EU


2/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those retired Brits in the EU27 could go home

3/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those Brits in the EU could stop driving down wages, taking jobs and stop sending benefits back to the UK

4/ Imagine if the EU said it was looking to use UK citizens as “bargaining chips” to get a better trade deal

5/ Imagine if the EU told UK citizens in the EU27 that they could no longer rely on established legal rights and they would have to apply for a new status which they have to pay for for less rights
POLITICS
Jeff Cortese
Jeff Cortese
@jeffreycortese
1/9 Impeachment fun fact: sitting Congressman #AlceeHastings, participating in current #impeachment, was himself impeached. He was fed judge convicted on 8 articles related to bribery/lying under oath. 4-years later, he was in #Congress. Following is from

2/9 “In 1981, a fed grand jury indicted Judge Hastings along with his friend William Borders, a D.C. lawyer. Hastings was charged with conspiracy/obstruction of justice for soliciting a $150,000 bribe in return for reducing the sentences of two mob-connected felons.” #corruption

3/9 “A year after Borders was convicted, the result of an FBI sting, Hastings's case came before the criminal court. Despite Borders’ conviction, and the fact that Hastings had indeed reduced the sentences of the two felons, he was acquitted...and returned to his judicial post.”

4/9 “Subsequently, suspicions arose that Hastings had lied and falsified evidence during the trial in order to obtain an acquittal. A special committee of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals began a new probe into the Hastings case.”

5/9 “The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes. The panel recommended further action to the U.S. Judicial Conference...”
POLITICS
@amuse
@amuse
@amuse
ENEMY OF THE STATE: There is a growing concern in Biden's administration that the world's richest African American could pose a huge problem for Biden and Democrats in general. This thread discusses the possible reasons why they fear the mercurial billionaire named Elon Musk.
POLITICS

You May Also Like

Simon DeDeo
Simon DeDeo
@SimonDeDeo
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
ALL
Delilah S. Dawson
Delilah S. Dawson
@DelilahSDawson
Hello, writers! How about a thread on LITERARY AGENTS? How to get one, how to talk to one, how to keep one happy. Spoiler alert: I am 100% pro agent and can't imagine not having one on my side. 1/

Why would you want a literary agent?
* you want to be traditionally published
* you want someone experienced to help guide your career
* you want to learn how to edit like a pro
* you want to sell foreign and movie rights
* you want answers to your newbie questions 2/

Why you might *NOT* want a literary agent:
* you want to self publish
* you're not willing to compromise on your edits
* you don't think their expertise is worth 15% of your advance
I... can't think this way. Literary agents have been crucial to my career. 3/

So, how do you get a literary agent?
1. Have a finished, revised, edited, polished manuscript.
2. Write a query letter for your book
3. Send your query to agents who rep your genre and are open to submissions
4. Repeat steps 1-4 until you're offered representation. 4/

So, let's go through those four steps. First of all, you must have a finished, revised, edited, polished book, and it must be sellable. That is, you can't sell a 600k picture book or a 40k adult Fantasy, etc. You must read extensively in the genre you're writing. 5/
WRITING
Advertisement
Vibhu Vashisth
Vibhu Vashisth
@VIBHU_Tweet
हिमालय पर्वत की एक बड़ी पवित्र गुफा थी।उस गुफा के निकट ही गंगा जी बहती थी।एक बार देवर्षि नारद विचरण करते हुए वहां आ पहुंचे।वह परम पवित्र गुफा नारद जी को अत्यंत सुहावनी लगी।वहां का मनोरम प्राकृतिक दृश्य,पर्वत,नदी और वन देख उनके हृदय में श्रीहरि विष्णु की भक्ति अत्यंत बलवती हो उठी।


और देवर्षि नारद वहीं बैठकर तपस्या में लीन हो गए।इन्द्र नारद की तपस्या से घबरा गए।उन्हें हमेशा की तरह अपना सिंहासन व स्वर्ग खोने का डर सताने लगा।इसलिए इन्द्र ने नारद की तपस्या भंग करने के लिए कामदेव को उनके पास भेज दिया।वहां पहुंच कामदेव ने अपनी माया से वसंतऋतु को उत्पन्न कर दिया।


पेड़ और पौधों पर रंग बिरंगे फूल खिल गए और कोयलें कूकने लगी,पक्षी चहकने लगे।शीतल,मंद,सुगंधित और सुहावनी हवा चलने लगी।रंभा आदि अप्सराएं नाचने लगीं ।किन्तु कामदेव की किसी भी माया का नारद पे कोई प्रभाव नहीं पड़ा।तब कामदेव को डर सताने लगा कि कहीं नारद क्रोध में आकर मुझे श्राप न देदें।

जैसे ही नारद ने अपनी आंखें खोली, उसी क्षण कामदेव ने उनसे क्षमा मांगी।नारद मुनि को तनिक भी क्रोध नहीं आया और उन्होने शीघ्र ही कामदेव को क्षमा कर दिया।कामदेव प्रसन्न होकर वहां से चले गए।कामदेव के चले जाने पर देवर्षि के मन में अहंकार आ गया कि मैने कामदेव को हरा दिया।

नारद फिर कैलाश जा पहुंचे और शिवजी को अपनी विजयगाथा सुनाई।शिव समझ गए कि नारद अहंकारी हो गए हैं और अगर ये बात विष्णु जी जान गए तो नारद के लिए अच्छा नहीं होगा।ये सोचकर शिवजी ने नारद को भगवन विष्णु को ये बात बताने के लीए मना किया। परंतु नारद जी को ये बात उचित नहीं लगी।
ALL
Vibhu Vashisth
Vibhu Vashisth
@VIBHU_Tweet
🌺कैसे बने गरुड़ भगवान विष्णु के वाहन और क्यों दो भागों में फटी होती है नागों की जिह्वा🌺

महर्षि कश्यप की तेरह पत्नियां थीं।लेकिन विनता व कद्रु नामक अपनी दो पत्नियों से उन्हे विशेष लगाव था।एक दिन महर्षि आनन्दभाव में बैठे थे कि तभी वे दोनों उनके समीप आकर उनके पैर दबाने लगी।


प्रसन्न होकर महर्षि कश्यप बोले,"मुझे तुम दोनों से विशेष लगाव है, इसलिए यदि तुम्हारी कोई विशेष इच्छा हो तो मुझे बताओ। मैं उसे अवश्य पूरा करूंगा ।"

कद्रू बोली,"स्वामी! मेरी इच्छा है कि मैं हज़ार पुत्रों की मां बनूंगी।"
विनता बोली,"स्वामी! मुझे केवल एक पुत्र की मां बनना है जो इतना बलवान हो की कद्रू के हज़ार पुत्रों पर भारी पड़े।"
महर्षि बोले,"शीघ्र ही मैं यज्ञ करूंगा और यज्ञ के उपरांत तुम दोनो की इच्छाएं अवश्य पूर्ण होंगी"।


महर्षि ने यज्ञ किया,विनता व कद्रू को आशीर्वाद देकर तपस्या करने चले गए। कुछ काल पश्चात कद्रू ने हज़ार अंडों से काले सर्पों को जन्म दिया व विनता ने एक अंडे से तेजस्वी बालक को जन्म दिया जिसका नाम गरूड़ रखा।जैसे जैसे समय बीता गरुड़ बलवान होता गया और कद्रू के पुत्रों पर भारी पड़ने लगा


परिणामस्वरूप दिन प्रतिदिन कद्रू व विनता के सम्बंधों में कटुता बढ़ती गयी।एकदिन जब दोनो भ्रमण कर रहीं थी तब कद्रू ने दूर खड़े सफेद घोड़े को देख कर कहा,"बता सकती हो विनता!दूर खड़ा वो घोड़ा किस रंग का है?"
विनता बोली,"सफेद रंग का"।
तो कद्रू बोली,"शर्त लगाती हो? इसकी पूँछ तो काली है"।
ALL
itrade(DJ)
itrade(DJ)
@ITRADE191
Here is the detailed information of about strategy,

Entry time : 9.30 - 10
Exit : Upto you

Strategy :
Sell weekly ATM CE & PE at almost equal price
For ex : Sell Nifty 17250 CE at 50 and Nifty 17250 PE at 48 so it will become short straddle

Buy monthly ATM or near ATM CE & PE at matching price (5-10 points diff should be fine) as hedge
For ex : Buy Nifty 17250 CE at 150 and Nifty 17300 PE at 155 so it will become long straddle.

Weekly Short straddle + Monthly Long straddle

Adjustment:

• If you feel slightly bullish/bearish then no adjustment needed
• If Nifty moves 50 up or down and sustain then just simply roll up or down half of qnty and keep rest of the quantity. If market goes up or down further then roll up or down rest.

• If Nifty moves one side or about to breach BEP then add equal amount of lot. This can balance tested side. For ex: If I bought 17300 CE 4 lot as hedge then add 4 lot so you will have only one side risk . Note: Remember to keep SL at cost price (only for additional lot bought)

Capital requirement:
2.2 L for 4 lot
Adjustment requires additional capital upto 1L

Note : High risk high reward strategy, please don’t execute until you fully understand. Kindly do paper trading or backtest.
RR : 1:1
POP : 45-55%
OPTIONSLEARNINGS , ALL