LessWrong 2.0 Reader

great, I bet my whole career and the future of the world on the premise that AI agents should be based on markets because markets are aligned and friendly, then Boeing just goes and kills two whistleblowers.

Early: That comes from AIs that are just powerful enough to be extremely useful and dangerous-by-default (i.e. these AIs aren’t wildly superhuman).

Can you be more clearer this point? To operationalize this, I propose the following question: what is the fraction of world GDP you expect will be attributable to AI at the time we have these risky AIs that you are interested in? 

For example, are you worried about AIs that will arise when AI is 1-10% of the economy, or more like 50%? 90%?

It suffices to show that the Smith lotteries that the above result establishes are the only lotteries that can be part of maximal lottery-lotteries are also subject to the partition-of-unity condition.

I fail to understand this sentence. Here are some questions about this sentence:

• what are Smith lotteries? Ctrl+f only finds lottery-Smith lottery-lotteries, do you mean these? Or do you mean lotteries that are smith?

• which result do you mean by "above result"?

• What does it mean for a lottery to be part of maximal lottery-lotteries?

• does "also subject to the partition-of-unity" refer to the smith lotteries or to the lotteries that are part of maximal lottery-lotteries? (it also feels like there is a word missing somewhere)

• Why would this suffice?

• Is this part also supposed to imply the existence of maximal lottery-lotteries? If so, why?

I, on the other hand, have very little confidence that people trying to build AGI will fail to quickly (within the next 3 years, aka 2027) find ways to do it. I do have confidence that we can politically coordinate to stop the situation becoming an extinction or near-extinction-level catastrophe. So I place much less emphasis on abstaining from publishing ideas which may help both alignment and capabilities, and more emphasis on figuring out ways to generate empirical evidence of the danger before it is too late, so as to facilitate political coordination.

I think that the situation in which humanity fails to politically coordinate to avoid building catastrophically dangerous AI is a situation that leads into conflict, likely a World War III with wide-spread use of nuclear weapons. I don't expect humanity to go extinct from this and I don't expect the rogue AGI to emerge as the victor, but I do think it is in everyone's interests to work hard to avoid such a devastating conflict. I do think that any such conflict would likely wipe out the majority of humanity. That's a pretty grim risk to be facing on the horizon.

Thank you for the clarification. This proposal is indeed importantly different from the PCEV proposal. But since hurting heretics is a moral imperative, any AI that allows heretics to escape punishment, will also be seen as unacceptable by at least some people. This means that the set of Pareto improvements is empty.

In other words: hurting heretics is indeed off the table in your proposal (which is an important difference compared to PCEV). However, any scenario that includes the existence of an AI, that allow heretics to escape punishment, is also off the table. The existence of such an AI, would be seen as intrinsically bad, by people that see hurting heretics as a moral imperative (for example: Gregg really does not want a world, where Gregg has agreed to tolerate the existence of an unethical AI, that disregards its moral duty, to punish heretics). More generally: anything that improves the lives of heretics, is off the table. If an outcome improves the lives of heretics (compared to the no-AI-baseline), then this outcome is also not a Pareto improvement. Because improving the lives of heretics, makes things worse from the point of view, of those that are deeply committed to hurting heretics.

In yet other words: it only takes two individuals, to rule out any outcome, that contains any improvement, for any person. Gregg and Jeff are both deeply committed to hurting heretics. But their definitions of ``heretic'' differ. Every individual is seen as a heretic by at least one of them. So, any outcome, that makes life better for any person, is off the table. Gregg and Jeff does have to be very committed to the moral position, that the existence of any AI, that neglects its duty to punish heretics, is unacceptable. It must for example be impossible to get them to agree to tolerate the existence of such an AI, in exchange for increased influence over the far future. But a population of billions only has to contain two such people, for the set of Pareto improvements to be empty.

Another way to approach this would be to ask: What would have happened, if someone had successfully implemented a Gatekeeper AI, built on top of a set of definitions, such that the set of Pareto improvements is empty?

For the version of the random dictator negotiation baseline that you describe, this comment [LW(p) · GW(p)] might actually be more relevant, than the PCEV thought experiment. It is a comment on the suggestion by Andrew Critch, that it might be possible to view a Boundaries / Membranes based BATNA, as having been agreed to acausally. It is impossible to reach such an acausal agreement when a group include people like Gregg and Jeff, for the same reason that it is impossible to find an outcome that is a Pareto improvement, when a group include people like Gregg and Jeff. (that comment also discuss ideas, for how one might deal with the dangers that arise, when one combines people like Gregg and Jeff, with a powerful and clever AI)

Another way to look at this, would be to consider what it would mean to find a Pareto improvement, with respect to only Bob and Dave. Bob wants to hurt heretics, and Bob considers half of all people to be heretics. Dave is an altruist, that just wants people to have as good a life as possible. The set of Pareto improvements would now be made up entirely of different variations of the general situation: make the lives of non heretics much better, and make the lives of heretics much worse. For Bob to agree, heretics must be punished. And for Dave to agree, Dave must see the average life quality, as an improvement on the ``no superintelligence'' outcome. If the ``no superintelligence'' outcome is bad for everyone, then the lives of heretics in this scenario could get very bad.

More generally: people like Bob (with aspects of morality along the lines of: ``heretics deserve eternal torture in hell'') will have dramatically increased power over the far future, when one uses this type of negotiation baseline (assuming that things have been patched, in a way that results in a non empty set of Pareto improvements). If everyone is included in the calculation of what counts as Pareto improvements, then the set of Pareto improvements is empty (due to people like Gregg and Jeff). And if everyone is not included, then the outcome could get very bad, for many people (compared to whatever would have happened otherwise).

(adding the SPADI feature to your proposal would remove these issues, and would prevent people like Dave from being dis-empowered, relative to people like Bob. The details are importantly different from PCEV, but it is no coincidence that adding the SPADI feature removes this particular problem, for both proposals. The common denominator is that from the perspective of Steve, it is in general dangerous to encounter an AI, that has taken ``unwelcome'' or ``hostile'' preferences about Steve into account)

Also: my general point about the concept of ``fair Pareto improvements'' having counterintuitive implications in this novel context still apply (it is not related to the details of any specific proposal).

(not a lawyer) 

My layman's understanding is that managerial employees are excluded from that ruling, unfortunately. Which I think applies to William_S if I read his comment correctly. (See Pg 11, in the "Excluded" section in the linked pdf in your link)

Does anyone know if it's typically the case that people under gag orders about their NDAs can talk to other people who they know signed the same NDAs? That is, if a bunch of people quit a company and all have signed self-silencing NDAs, are they normally allowed to talk to each other about why they quit and commiserate about the costs of their silence?

Preface: I think this comment will be pretty unpopular here.

I think this is a very unhelpful frame for any discussion (especially so the more high-stakes it is) for the reasons that SlateStarCodex outlines in Against Bravery Debates, and I think your comment would be better with this removed.

Added: I appreciate the edit :)

Uh I'm saying I think henry's is better. Except for the title maybe.

This style of thinking seems illogical to me. It has already clearly resulted in a sort of evaporative cooling in OpenAI. At a high level, is it possible you have the opposite of a wishful thinking bias you claim OpenAI researchers have? I won't go into too much detail about why this post doesn't make sense to me. as others already have. 
But broadly speaking:

• I doubt rationality gives you too much of an advantage in capabilities research, and believing this when on a site full of rationalists seems a little pretentious almost. 
   
• I also have no idea how any alignment research so far has helped capabilities in any way.  I don't even know how RLHF has helped capabilities. If anything, it's well documented that RLHF diminishes capabilities (base models can for example play chess very well). The vast majority of alignment research, especially research before LLMs,  isn't even useful to alignment (a lot of it seems far too ungrounded).  
   
• There was never a real shot of solving alignment until LLMs became realized either.  The world has changed and it seems like foom priors are wrong, but most here haven't updated. It increasingly seems like we'll get strong precursor models so we will have ample time to engineer solutions and it won't be like trying to build a working rocket on the first try. (The reasons being we are rapidly approaching the limits of energy constraints and transistor density without really being close to fooming). This mental model is still popular when reality seems to diverge.
  
   

Well I actually have a hunch to why, many holding on to the above priors don't want to let them go because that means this problem they have dedicated a lot of mental space to will seem more feasible to solve. 

If it's instead a boring engineering problem, this stops being a quest to save the world or an all consuming issue. Incremental alignment work might solve it, so in order to preserve the difficulty of the issue, it will cause extinction for some far-fetched reason. Building precursor models then bootstrapping alignment might solve it, so this "foom" is invented and held on to (for a lot of highly speculative assumptions), because that would stop it from being a boring engineering problem that requires lots of effort and instead something a lone genius will have to solve. The question that maybe energy constraints will limit AI progress from here on out was met with a maybe response [LW(p) · GW(p)], but the number of upvotes make me think most readers just filed it as an unconditional "no, it won't" in their minds.

There is a good reason to think like this - if boring engineering really does solve the issue, then this community is better off assuming it won't. In that scenario, boring engineering work is being done by the tech industry anyways, so no need to help there. But I hope if people adopt the mindset of assuming the worst case scenario to have the highest expected effects of research, they realize the assumption they are making is an assumption, and not let the mental effects consume them.