LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Loved the post and all the comments <3

Here is I think an interesting scenario / though experiment:

1.  A copy of a person is made while that original person is sleeping on a bed.
2. The original person is moved to a sofa while still sleeping.
3. The copy (which is also sleeping) is put in the bed at the exact same position where the original person was.
4. After a while the original and the copy both wake up and can see each other (we assume they are both completely oblivious to exactly what happened while they were sleeping and that they didn't dream or they dreamt the same thing, etc...)

At wake-up, based on their own memory of where the original person fell asleep, the original person will likely feel they are the copy and the copy will likely feel they are the original person, wouldn't they?!

Some might even argue that based on stream-of-consciousness continuity the original "me" is actually the copy (because the copy remembers falling asleep in the bed and actually wakes up in the bed as well).

Some others will argue that based on substrate/matter continuity the original "me" is the original person even if their stream-of-consciousness has experienced a discontinuity (remembering falling asleep in the bed but actually waking up on the sofa while seeing an identical person as them waking up in the bed).

I guess it is subjective and a matter of individual preference if the stream-of-consciousness continuity or the substrate continuity is more important to define who the original "me" is.

Some would even argue that in this case there is not actual any firm original "me", just one "stream-of-consciousness me" and another different "subtrate me".

(The same/similar thought experiment could be done using the direct brain insertion of false memories instead of moving around people while they sleep / are unconscious, in this example an original person could be inserted false memories that they are a copy and vice-versa to manipulate the memory / self-awareness of who the original "me" is, also generally it obviously could be useful when someone is uploaded/copied if they want to alter some memories of their upload/copy for some reason)

To what extent would the organization be factoring in transformative AI timelines? It seems to me like the kinds of questions one would prioritize in a "normal period" look very different than the kinds of questions that one would prioritize if they place non-trivial probability on "AI may kill everyone in <10 years" or "AI may become better than humans on nearly all cognitive tasks in <10 years."

I ask partly because I personally would be more excited of a version of this that wasn't ignoring AGI timelines, but I think a version of this that's not ignoring AGI timelines would probably be quite different from the intellectual spirit/tradition of FHI.

More generally, perhaps it would be good for you to describe some ways in which you expect this to be different than FHI. I think the calling it the FHI of the West, the explicit statement that it would have the intellectual tradition of FHI, and the announcement right when FHI dissolves might make it seem like "I want to copy FHI" as opposed to "OK obviously I don't want to copy it entirely I just want to draw on some of its excellent intellectual/cultural components." If your vision is the latter, I'd find it helpful to see a list of things that you expect to be similar/different.)

I would strongly suggest considering hires who would be based in DC (or who would hop between DC and Berkeley). In my experience, being in DC (or being familiar with DC & having a network in DC) is extremely valuable for being able to shape policy discussions, know what kinds of research questions matter, know what kinds of things policymakers are paying attention to, etc.

I would go as far as to say something like "in 6 months, if MIRI's technical governance team has not achieved very much, one of my top 3 reasons for why MIRI failed would be that they did not engage enough with DC people//US policy people. As a result, they focused too much on questions that Bay Area people are interested in and too little on questions that Congressional offices and executive branch agencies are interested in. And relatedly, they didn't get enough feedback from DC people. And relatedly, even the good ideas they had didn't get communicated frequently enough or fast enough to relevant policymakers. And relatedly... etc etc."

I do understand this trades off against everyone being in the same place, which is a significant factor, but I think the cost is worth it. 

I strongly agree with Owen's suggestions about figuring out a plan grounded in current circumstances, rather than reproducing what was.

Here's some thoughts about what this might look like:

• Rationality as more of a focus area: Given that Lightcone runs Less Wrong, an obvious path to explore is whether rationality could be further developed by providing people either a fellowship or a permanent position to work on developing the art:
  • Being able to offer such paid positions might allow you to draw contributions from people with rare backgrounds. For example, you might decide it would be useful to better understand anthropology as a way of better understanding other cultures and practices and so you could directly hire an anthropologist to help with that.
  • It would also help with projects that would be valuable, but which would be a slog and require specific expertise. For example, it would be great to have someone update the sequences in light of more recent psychological research.
• Greater focus on entrepreneurship:
  • You've already indicated your potential interest in taking it this direction by adding it as one of the options on your form.
  • This likely makes sense given that Lightcone is located in the Bay Area, the city with the most entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in the world.
• Response to the rise of AI:
  • One of the biggest shifts in the world since FHI was started has been the dramatic improvements in AI
  • One response to this would be to focus more on the risks and impacts from AI. However, there are already a number of institutions focusing on this, so this might simply end up being a worse version of them:
    • You may also think that you might be able to find a unique angle, for example, given how Eliezer was motivated to create rationality in order to help people understand his arguments on AI safety, it might be valuable for there to be a research program which intertwines those two elements.
    • Or you might identify areas, such as AI consciousness, that feel ignored/underappreciated by the mainstream.
  • Another response would be to try to figure out how to leverage AI:
    • As an example, how could AI be used to develop wisdom.
  • Another response would be to decide that better orgs are positioned to pursue these projects.
• Is there anything in the legacy of MIRI, CFAR of FHI that is particularly ripe for further development?:
  • For example, would it make sense for someone to try to publish an explanation of some of the ideas produced by MIRI on decision theory in a mainstream philosophical journal?
  • Perhaps some techniques invented by CFAR could be tested with a rigorous academic study?
• Potential new sources of ideas:
  • There seems to have been a two-way flow of ideas between LW/EA and FHI.
  • Are there any new communities that could provide a novel source of ideas?:
    • A few immediately come to mind: post-rationality, progress studies, sensemaking, meditation, longevity.
• Opportunities for alpha from philosophical rigour:
  • This was one of the strengths of FHI - bringing philosophical rigour to new areas - how can this be preserved/carried forward?
  • One of the strengths of academic philosophy - compared to the more casual writing that is popular on Less Wrong - is its focus on rigour and drawing out distinctions. If this institute were able to recruit people with strong philosophical backgrounds, are there any areas that would be particularly ripe for applying this style of thinking?

I do think evaporative cooling is a concern, especially if everyone (or a very significant amount) of people left. But I think on the margin more people should be leaving to work in govt. 

I also suspect that a lot of systemic incentives will keep a greater-than-optimal proportion of safety-conscious people at labs as opposed to governments (labs pay more, labs are faster and have less bureaucracy, lab people are much more informed about AI, labs are more "cool/fun/fast-paced", lots of govt jobs force you to move locations, etc.)

I also think it depends on the specific lab– EG in light of the recent OpenAI departures, I suspect there's a stronger case for staying at OpenAI right now than for DeepMind or Anthropic. 

This works too, yeah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Twitter, probably.

Sounds like a lot of political alliances! (And "these two political actors are aligned" is arguably an even weaker condition than "these two political actors are allies".)

At the end of the day, of course, all of these analogies are going to be flawed. AI is genuinely a different beast.

Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy.

This is such an incredible quote. I feel like I could write a whole essay on this.