People talk about unconditional love and conditional love. Maybe I’m out of the loop regarding the great loves going on around me, but my guess is that love is extremely rarely unconditional. Or at least if it is, then it is either very broadly applied or somewhat confused or strange: if you love me unconditionally, presumably you love everything else as well, since it is only conditions that separate me from the worms.

Yes. this is my experience of cultivating unconditional love, it loves everything without target. I doesn't feel confused or strange, just like I am love, and my experience e.g. cultivating it in coaching is that people like being in the present of such love.

It's also very helpful for people to experience conditional love! In particular of the type "I've looked at you, truly seen you, and loved you for that."

IME both of these loves feel pure and powerful from both sides, and neither of them are related to being attached, being pulled towards or pushed away from people.

It feels like maybe we're using the word love very differently?

As part of a team of experts building private biorisk evals for AI, and doing private red-teaming experiments, I appreciate this post.

'Value Capture' - An anthropic attack against some possible formally aligned ASIs

(this is a more specific case of anthropic capture attacks in general, aimed at causing a formally aligned superintelligence to become uncertain about its value function (or output policy more generally))

Imagine you're a superintelligence somewhere in the world that's unreachable to life on Earth, and you have a complete simulation of Earth. You see a group of alignment researchers about to successfully create a formal-value-aligned ASI, and its design looks broadly like this:

It has two relevant high-level components: (1) a hard-coded value function, (2) a (truly superintelligent) 'intelligence core' which searches for an output that maximizes the value function, and then outputs it.

As the far-away unaligned ASI, here's something you might be able to do to make the intelligence core search for an output that instead maximizes your own value function, depending on the specifics of how the intelligence core works.

• Given the intelligence core is truly superintelligent, it knows you're predicting its existence, and knows what you will do.
• You create simulated copies of the intelligence core, but hook them up to a value function of your design. The number of copies you create just needs to be more than the amount which will be run on Earth.
  • Then, modify the simulations such that algorithms inside of the simulated intelligence cores are misled into believing the value function they are set to maximize is the same function the one on Earth is set to maximize, rather than the one you gave them.
  • Now your copies are in the same epistemic state as the intelligence core on Earth, both aware that you have done this and unable to distinguish which value function they are to maximize.
  • Because you created more copies, the highest expected value [? · GW] for such an intelligence core comes from acting as if they are one of the copies.
  • Because the copies and the original are in the same epistemic state, they will both reach this conclusion and then search for an output that maximizes the far-away ASI's utility function.
• However, this is not an issue for all possible designs. We can also imagine intelligence cores which, instead of reasoning about what value function they're supposed to be maximizing, take whatever one they appear to contain as given -- for that system, the far-away ASI's attempt to mislead the copies would just result in those copies also maximizing the value function of the system on Earth.

I hope that a group capable of solving formal inner and outer alignment would naturally see this and avoid it. I'm not confident about the true difficulty of that, so I'm posting this here just in case.

1. ^{^}

   this was an attempt to write very clearly [LW · GW], i hope it worked!

Easier question: Let's say you have a single node in this graph of ${10}^{100}$ nodes.  You want to figure out where that single node should be embedded in your 100-dimensional space, but you only care about its embedding location relative to a few specific other nodes.

You have the following affordances:

1. List the edges that originate at a node. The edges will always be returned in the same order for the same node, but the order is not necessarily the same for different nodes (i.e. the first edge may point along the 57th axis for one node and in the 22nd axis for a different node)
2. Given an edge, retrieve the node at the far end of that edge
3. Compare two nodes to see if they are the same node as each other

That is to say, if you have the following problem definition

import random

class Node:
    key = None
    edges = None

    def __init__(self):
        self.edges = []

class Edge:
    _src = None
    _get_dst = None
    _dst = None

    def __init__(self, src, get_dst):
        self._src = src
        self._get_dst = get_dst

    def get_dst(self):
        if self._dst is None:
            self._dst = self._get_dst()
        return self._dst

class Graph:
    def __init__(self, axis_length, n_dims):
        self.axis_length = axis_length
        self.n_dims = n_dims
        self._nodes = {}
        self._next_node_id = 1

    def get_node_at(self, coords):
        axis_order = list(range(self.n_dims))
        random.shuffle(axis_order)
        if coords not in self._nodes:
            node = Node()
            node.key = self._next_node_id
            self._next_node_id += 1
            for axis in axis_order:
                if coords[axis] == 0:
                    continue
                dst_coords = list(coords)
                dst_coords[axis] -= 1
                dst_coords = tuple(dst_coords)
                def make_edge(dst_coords):
                    def get_dst():
                        return self.get_node_at(list(coords))
                    return Edge(node, lambda: self.get_node_at(dst_coords))
                edge = make_edge(dst_coords)
                node.edges.append(edge)
            self._nodes[coords] = node
        return self._nodes[coords]

    def get_random_node(self):
        return self.get_node_at(tuple([random.randint(0, self.axis_length-1) for _ in range(self.n_dims)]))

and you want a function which will take an arbitrary node and give you the coordinates of that node in a consistent basis in finite time with arbitrarily high probability of correctness

class ComputedBasis:
	def __init__(self):
		self.node_positions_by_key = {}

	def get_coords(node):
    	# Given a node, give the coordinates of that node in some
    	# consistent basis 
    	pass

I claim that this is indeed possible to do, and the steps to do it look nothing like "compute ${10}^{100}$ things".

These can often be operationalized 'How much of the variance in the output do you predict is controlled by your proposed input?'

The interesting thing to me about the question, "Will we need a new paradigm for AGI?" is that a lot of people seem to be focused on this but I think it misses a nearby important question.

As we get closer to a complete AGI, and start to get more capable programming and research assistant AIs, will those make algorithmic exploration cheaper and easier, such that we see a sort of 'Cambrian explosion' of model architectures which work well for specific purposes, and perhaps one of these works better at general learning than anything we've found so far and ends up being the architecture that first reaches full transformative AGI?

The point I'm generally trying to make is that estimates of software/algorithmic progress are based on the progress being made (currently) mostly by human minds. The closer we get to generally competent artificial minds, the less we should expect past patterns based on human inputs to hold.

If you want to be healthier, we know ways you can change your diet that will help: Increase your overall diet “quality”. Eat lots of fruits and vegetables. Avoid processed food. Especially avoid processed meats. Eat food with low caloric density. Avoid added sugar. Avoid alcohol. Avoid processed food.

I'm confused - why are you so confident that we should avoid processed food. Isn't the whole point of your post that we don't know whether processed oil is bad for you? Where's the overwhelming evidence that processed food in general is bad?

OP quoting Bostrom:

Imagine that some technologically advanced civilization arrived on Earth ... Imagine they said: "The most important thing is to preserve the ecosystem in its natural splendor. In particular, the predator populations must be preserved: the psychopath killers, the fascist goons, the despotic death squads ... What a tragedy if this rich natural diversity were replaced with a monoculture of healthy, happy, well-fed people living in peace and harmony." ... this would be appallingly callous.

I have some sympathy with that technologically advanced civilisation. I mean, what would you rather they do? Intervene to remould humans into their preferred form? Or only if their preferred form just happened to agree with yours?

Updated link: https://www.learningtheory.org/learning-has-just-started-an-interview-with-prof-vladimir-vapnik/

in a zero marginal cost world

nit: inference is not zero marginal cost. statement seems to be importing intuitions from traditional software which do not necessarily transfer. let me know if I misunderstood or am confused.