Posts
Comments
Tangentially to Tanagrabeast's "least you can do" suggestion, as a case report: I came out to my family as an AI xrisk worrier over a decade ago, when one could still do so in a fairly lighthearted way. They didn't immediately start donating to MIRI and calling their senators to request an AI safety manhattan project, but they did agree with the arguments I presented, and check up with me, on occasion, about how the timelines and probabilities are looking.
I have had two new employers since then, and a few groups of friends; and with each, when the conversation turns to AI (as it often does, over the last half-decade), I mention my belief that it's likely going to kill us all, and expand on Instrumental Convergence, RAAP, and/or "x-risk, from Erewhon, to IJ Good, to the Extropians," depending on which aspect people seem interested in. I've been surprised by the utter lack of dismissal and mockery, so far!
See also Steven Kaas' aphorisms on twitter:
> First Commandment of the Church of Tautology: Live next to thy neighbor
And
> "Whatever will be will be" is only the first secret of the tautomancers.
The story I read about why neighbor polling is supposed to correct for bias in specifically the last few presidential elections is that some people plan to vote for Trump, but are ashamed of this, and don't want to admit it to people who aren't verified Trump supporters. So if you ask them who they plan to vote for, they'll dissemble. But if you ask them who their neighbors are voting for, that gives them permission to share their true opinion non-attributively.
In the late 80's, I was homeschooled, and studied caligraphy (as well as cursive); but I considered that more of a hobby than preparation for entering the workforce of 1000 years ago.
I also learned a bit about DOS and BASIC, after being impressed with the fractal-generating program that the carpenter working on our house wrote, and demonstrated on our computer.
Your definition seems like it fits the Emperor of China example--by reputation, they had few competitors for being the most willing and able to pessimize another agent's utility function; e.g. 9 Familial Exterminations.
And that seems to be a key to understanding this type of power, because if they were able to pessimize all other agents' utility functions, that would just be an evil mirror of bargaining power. Being able to choose a sharply limited number of unfortunate agents, and punish them severely pour encourager les autres, seems like it might just stop working when the average agent is smart enough to implicitly coordinate around a shared understanding of payoff matrices.
So I think I might have arrived back to the "all dominance hierarchies will be populated solely by scheming viziers" conclusion.
Clarifying question: If A>B on the dominance hierarchy, that doesn't seem to mean that A can always just take all B's stuff, per the Emperor of China example. It also doesn't mean that A can trust B to act faithfully as A's agent, per the cowpox example.
If all dominance hierarchies control is who has to signal submission to whom, dominance seems only marginally useful for defense, law, taxes, and public expenditure; mostly as a way of reducing friction toward the outcome that would have happened anyway.
It seems like, with intelligence too cheap to meter, any dominance hierarchy that doesn't line up well with the bargaining power hierarchy or the getting-what-you-want vector space is going to be populated with nothing but scheming viziers.
But that seems like a silly conclusion, so I think I'm missing something about dominance hierarchies.
Note also that there are several free parameters in this example. E.g., I just moved to Germany, and now have wimpy German burners on my stove. If I put on a large container with 6L or more of water, and I do not cover it, the water will never go beyond bubble formation into a light simmer, let alone a rolling boil. If I cover the container at this steady state, it reaches a rolling boil in about another 90s.
Is Patrick McKenzie (@patio11) another Matt Levine of fintech? Or is he something else? I know several people outside of the industry (including myself) who read pretty much everything he writes, which includes a lot of technical detail written very accessibly.
I think being a Catholic with no connection to living leaders makes more sense than being an EA who doesn't have a leader they trust and respect
Catholic EA: You have a leader you trust and respect, and defer to their judgement.
Sola Fide EA: You read 80k hours and Givewell, but you keep your own spreadsheet of EV calculations.
I'd be interested to know what the numbers on UV in ductwork look like over the past 5 years. When I had to get a new A/C system installed in 2020, they asked whether I wanted a UVC light installed in the air handler. I had, before then, been using a 70w UVC corn light I bought on Amazon to sterilize the exterior of groceries (back when we thought fomites might be a major transmission vector), and in improvised ductwork with fans and cardboard boxes taped together.
Getting a proper bulb--an optimal wavelength source--seemed like a big upgrade. Hard to come up with quantitative efficacy numbers, but we did have a friend over for the day, who turned out to have been in the early stages of covid, without getting infected. Our first infection was years later, at a music event.
This is great! Everybody loves human intelligence augmentation, but I've never seen a taxonomy of it before, offering handholds for getting started.
I'd say "software exobrain" is less "weaksauce," and more "80% of the peak benefits are already tapped out, for conscientious people who have heard of OneNote or Obsidian." I also am still holding out for bird neurons with portia spider architectural efficiency and human cranial volume; but I recognize that may not be as practical as it is cool.
It's very standard advice to notice when a sense of urgency is being created by a counterparty in some transaction; and to reduce your trust in that counterparty as well as pausing.
It feels like a valuable observation, to me, that the counterparty could be internal--some unendorsed part of your own values, perhaps.
(e.g. in the hypothetical ‘harbinger tax’ world, you actively want to sabotage the resale value of everything you own that you want to actually use).
"harberger tax," for anyone trying to look that up.
If you can pay the claimed experts enough to submit to some testing, you could use Google's new doubly-efficient debate protocol to make them either spend some time colluding, or spend a lot more time in their efforts at deception: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/79BPxvSsjzBkiSyTq/agi-safety-and-alignment-at-google-deepmind-a-summary-of
This could exclude competent evaluators without other income--this isn't Dath Ilan, where a bank could evaluate evaluators and front them money at interest rates that depended on their probability of finding important risks--and their shortage of liquidity could provide a lever for distortion of their incentives.
On Earth, if someone's working for you, and you're not giving them a salary commensurate with the task, there's a good chance they are getting compensation in other ways (some of which might be contrary to your goals).
Thanks! Just what I was looking for.
Some cities have dedicated LW/ACX Discord servers, which is pretty neat. Many of the cities hosting meetups over the next month are too small to have much traffic to such a server, were it set up. A combined, LW meetup oriented Discord server for all the smaller cities in the world, with channels for each city and a few channels for common small-meetup concerns, seems like a $20 bill on the sidewalk. So I’m checking whether such a thing exists here, before I start it.
I think the cruxes here are whether Aldi forced out small retailers like Walmart did; and how significant the difference between Walmart and Aldi is, compared to the difference between Aldi and large, successful retail orgs in wentworthland or christiankiland.
(my experience in German shopping is that most grocery stores are one of a half-dozen chains, most hardware stores are Bauhaus or OBI, but there isn't a dominant "everything" store like Walmart; Müller might be closest but its market dominance and scale is more like K-mart in the 90's than Walmart today.)
An existing subgenre of this with several examples is the two-timer date. As I recall, it was popular in 90's sitcoms. Don't expect INT 18 tier scheming, but it does usually show the perspective of the people frantically trying to keep the deception running.
Here's the intuition that's making me doubt the utility of provably correct system design to avoiding bridge crashes:
I model the process leading up to a ship that doesn't crash into a bridge as having many steps.
1. Marine engineers produce a design for a safe ship
2. Management signs off on the design without cutting essential safety features
3. Shipwrights build it to spec without cutting any essential corners
4. The ship operator understands and follows the operations and maintenance manuals, without cutting any essential corners
5. Nothing out-of-distribution happens over the lifetime of the ship.
And to have a world where no bridges are taken out by cargo ships, repeat that 60,000 times.
It seems to me that provably safe design can help with step 1--but it's not clear to me that step 1 is where the fault happened with the Francis Scott Key bridge. Engineers can and do make bridge-destroying mistakes (I grew up less than 50 miles from the Tacoma Narrows bridge), but that feels rare to me compared to problems in the other steps: management does cut corners, builders do slip up, and O&M manuals do get ignored.
With verifiable probabilities of catastrophe, maybe a combination of regulation and insurance could incentivize makers and operators of ships to operate safely--but insurers already employ actuaries to estimate the probability of catastrophe, and it's not clear to me that the premiums charged to the MV Dali were incorrect. As for the Francis Scott Key, I don't know how insuring a bridge works, but I believe most of the same steps and problems apply.
(Addendum: The new Doubly-Efficient Debate paper on Google's latest LW post might make all of these messy principal-agent human-corrigibility type problems much more tractable to proofs? Looks promising.)
https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html Large universes put some subtleties into the meaning of "real" that aren't present in its common usage.
Decision theory-wise, caring about versions of yourself that are inexorably about to dissolve into thermal noise doesn't seem useful. As a more general principle, caring about the decisions you make seems useful to the extent that those decisions can predictably change things.
My dreams have none of the consistency that allowed smart people to figure out the laws of nature over the millenia. It might be possible for a superintelligence to figure out how to make decisions within a world working on dream rules which had predictable future effects, but I believe it to be far beyond my powers.
That example seems particularly hard to ameliorate with provable safety. To focus on just one part, how could we prove the ship would not lose power long enough to crash into something? If you try to model the problem at the level of basic physics, it's obviously impossible. If you model it at the level of a circuit diagram, it's trivial--power sources on circuit diagrams do not experience failures. There's no obviously-correct model granularity; there are schelling points, but what if threats to the power supply do not respect our schelling points?
It seems to me that, at most, we could prove safety of a modeled power supply, against a modeled, enumerated range of threats. Intuitively, I'm not sure that compares favorably to standard engineering practices, optimizing for safety instead of for lowest-possible cost.
I guess this is common knowledge, but I missed it: What is with the huge dip in CPI before 2020? I'm confused, especially because the 2008 crash barely shows up. A cursory googling and asking ChatGPT failed me.
Anecdotally*, IPL/laser therapy seems to do all of these except increasing dermal capillaries, which it instead reduces. This makes it ideal for people with rosacea or other inflammatory problems, and fair skin (which often accompanies these problems).
*And with a few references: Effective treatment of rosacea using intense pulsed light systems - PubMed (nih.gov)
IPL irradiation rejuvenates skin collagen via the bidirectional regulation of MMP-1 and TGF-β1 mediated by MAPKs in fibroblasts - PubMed (nih.gov)
some studies find no significant effect on collagen etc.; I don't know what went wrong here besides perhaps too-tan skin: Intense pulsed light photorejuvenation: a histological and immunohistochemical evaluation - PubMed (nih.gov)
You'll be happy to know that standards bodies have noticed the "entropy reduction from excessive rules" problem. The latest version of NIST Special Publication 800-63B says to disallow four password categories like "already in a breach database" and "aaaaa," but goes on to direct verifiers to not impose any other rules on password composition.
As for me, I just choose the first four digits of the busy beaver numbers--1621--as my PIN. As a noncomputable number, it's guaranteed to be the most random choice possible.
One unstated, load-bearing assumption is that whatever service or good humans can trade to ASI will be of equal or greater worth to it than our subsistence income.
Land Value Tax would solve this.
(Sort of--funding UBI from a 100% LVT would solve it for the case of literal rent seeking, because if landlords increased the rent, that additional money would be taxed back into the UBI pool. To make it a general solution, you'd have to identify all instances of rent-seeking, and tax the underlying asset with a metaphorical 100% LVT).
Sure, that's fair enough. I was thinking in the context of "formal verification that would have prevented this outage."
It would specifically be impossible to prove the Crowdstrike driver safe because, by necessity, it regularly loads new data provided by Crowdstrike threat intelligence, and changes its behavior based on those updates.
Even if you could get the CS driver to refuse to load new updates without proving certain attributes of those updates, you would also need some kind of assurance of the characteristics of every other necessary part of the Windows OS, in every future update.
I feel like it's still Moloch to blame, if a sufficient bribe to landowners would cost less than indefinitely continued rent-seeking.
I don't have any calculations to offer in support; but I would generally expect an individual landowner's time preference to be lower than society's as a whole, so I suspect this is indeed the case.
So the actual reason is that landowners don't want to be seen taking a bribe, because that would involve acknowledging they have been knowingly rent-seeking since 1879; and the government doesn't want to openly bribe them for moral hazard whatever; so even though everyone would be better off by their own lights it can't happen. And that's fairly moloch-flavored.
Twitter has announced a new policy of deleting accounts which have had no activity for a few years. I used the Wayback Machine to archive Grognor's primary twitter account here. Hal Finney's wife is keeping his account alive.
I do not know who else may have died, or cryo-suspended, over the years of LW; nor how long the window of action is to preserve the accounts.
Or A*, which is a much more computationally efficient and deterministic way to minimize the distance to finish the maze, if you have an appropriate heuristic. I don't have an argument for it, but I feel like finding a good heuristic and leveraging it probably works very well as a generalizable strategy.
Iran is an agent, with a constrained amount of critical resources like nuclear engineers, centrifuges, etc.
AI development is a robust, agent-agnostic process that has an unlimited number of researchers working in adjacent areas who could easily cross-train to fill a deficit, an unlimited number of labs which would hire researchers from DeepMind and OpenAI if they closed, and an unlimited amount of GPUs to apply to the problem.
Probably efforts at getting the second-tier AI labs to take safety more seriously, in order to give the top tier more slack, will move back AI timelines a little? But most of the activities that my brain labels "nonviolent resistance" are the type that will be counterproductive unless there's already a large social movement behind them.
For personal communications, meta-conversations seem fine.
If you're setting up an organization, though, you should consider adopting some existing, time-tested system for maintaining secrets. For example, you could classify secrets into categories--those which would cause exceptionally grave harm to the secret's originator's values (call this category, say, "TS"); those which would cause serious harm ("S"), and those which would cause some noticeable harm ("C"). Set down appropriate rules for the handling of each type of secret--for example, you might not even write down the TS ones unless you had a very secure safe to store them in, or verbally discuss them outside of protected meeting rooms; and you might not do anything with the S secrets on an internet-connected computer. Anything above C might require a written chain of custody, with people taking responsibility for both the creation and destruction of any recorded form of the information.
You would then have to watch for mutual information in your communications, and see that no combination of the information that you publicly released could cause a large update toward one of the secrets you were keeping. You'd also want to think of some general steps to take after an unplanned disclosure of each type of secret.
It may not sound like the most efficient way to do things, but there's some pretty high Chesterton's Fences around this kind of policy.
The answer I came up with, before reading, is that the proper maxent distribution obviously isn't uniform over every planck interval from here until protons decay; it's also obviously not a gaussian with a midpoint halfway to when protons decay. But the next obvious answer is a truncated normal distribution. And that is not a thought conducive to sleeping well.
I've used Eliezer's prayer to good effect, but it's a bit short. And I have considered The Sons of Martha, but it's a bit long.
Has anyone, in their rationalist readings, found something that would work as a Thanksgiving invocation of a just-right length?
Robin Hanson said, with Eliezer eventually concurring, that "bets like this will just recover interest rates, which give the exchange rate between resources on one date and resources on another date."
E.g., it's not impossible to bet money on the end of the world, but it's impossible to do it in a way substantially different from taking a loan.
I built a thing.
UVC lamps deactivate viruses in the air, but harm skin, eyes, and DNA. So I made a short duct out of cardboard, with a 60W UVC corn bulb in a recessed compartment, and put a fan in it.
I plan to run it whenever someone other than my wife and I visits my house.
https://imgur.com/a/QrtAaUz
Note that Mortal Engines--that steampunk movie with the mobile, carnivorous cities--was released halfway between the original publishing of this essay and today.
Given the difficulties people have mentioned with moving high-density housing between and through cities, maybe we need small cities on SMTs ?
These were some great questions. I doubt a few of the answers, however. For example:
My estimate of how far off LEV is with 50% probability started out at 25 years 15 or so years ago, and is now 17 years, so let’s use round numbers and say 20 years. Those estimates have always been explicitly "post-money", though - in other words, when I say the money would make 10 years of difference, I mean that without the money, it would be 30 years. I think $1B is enough to remove that factor of 2-3 that you mentioned in the previous question, i.e. to take it down to around 1, because it would add a digit to our budget for 20 years. That factor is already coming down, and I expect that it will continue to do so as further progress is made at the bench, which is why I average the benefit out to a factor of 1.5 (i.e. 30/20).
Aubrey de Grey admits to drinking four pints of beer a day, and I believe his total ethanol consumption is much higher (via evidence which is strong to me, but not to you). He's 57, and looks older than many in their 70s. The evidence may be ambiguous on the longevity effects of <2 drinks per day, but it's quite clear on 4 or over.
This doesn't seem like the behavior of someone who truly believes, in the sense of constraining his expected experiences, that his remaining expected lifespan is almost exactly the time to LEV. I don't know what the real timeline to LEV is, but Dr. de Grey acts like he believes it's well over 30 years.
The 100% efficacy for a middle filter layer that's had a saltwater + surfactant sprayed onto it sounds really good; but I wonder how tight the filter material has to be, for that level of efficacy. I also wonder how much air resistance the salt coat adds.
A HEPA filter + carbon would be less restrictive if the carbon part were salted than if the HEPA filter itself were salted, but that might not deactivate all of the virus.
If virus exposure mid-illness worsens your symptoms, doesn't that mean being indoors is harmful? it would be far healthier to spend as much time outdoors as possible? Perhaps on a net hammock if you have to lie down, so your face isn't lying on a cloth full of the virus you're exhaling? Surely this effect would be so large that clinical studies would have noticed by now, people recovering much faster when they're not in a hospital room, or in a room at all.
On a gears-level, it seems like illness severity would be heavily dose-dependent until the virus replication rate has outpaced the amount you could reasonably inhale.
If so, if you have a specific event that you're concerned may have exposed you, it might be worthwhile to sleep outside for a few nights, weather permitting.
How many dimensions is inference space? How many duck-sized horses do we need, to have a 2/3 chance of taking those steps? And are they being modeled as duck-sized monkeys with typewriters, or are they closer to a proper mini-Einstein, who is likely to go the correct direction?
I live in a hot region, and have a car parked outside. I've been putting non-heat-sensitive packages in there for a day, since interior temperatures should be going above 130F / 55C, and easily killing any viruses.
Disinfection guidelines are 70C for 30 minutes. I've read elsewhere that 27C deactivates the virus, but never seen that claim attached to logs per hour. Has anybody seen quantitative data on covid survival rates in human-survivable temperatures at various humidities?
edit: found some stuff for the last SARS: if you go to 100F / 48C *and* 95+% humidity, you will kill 2 log10 in 24 hours. If you lose humidity *or* temperature, you’re back to the baseline of 1 to 0 logs in 24h.
Is the described process different from Dempster-Shafer ?
For the object-level question, Wei Dai linked to this study showing benzalkonium chloride (and a few related chemicals) ineffective against enveloped human coronavirus (although this was one of the common cold variants).
This is good, but I'd add a caveat: it works best in a situation where "normal" is obviously not catastrophic. The airplane example is central to this category. However lift works, air travel is the safest method of getting from one continent to another ever devised by humanity. If you take DMT and finally become aware of the machine elves supporting the weight of each wing, you should congratulate them on their diligence and work ethic.
The second example, morality under MWI, veers closer to the edge of "normal is obviously not catastrophic." MWI says you're causally disconnected from other branches. If your good and bad actions had morally equivalent effects, you would not anticipate different observations than you would under "normality."
As lincolnquirk pointed out, Covid and other long tail events are diametrically opposed to the "normal is obviously not catastrophic" category. Instead of the object-level belief being changed by a discussion on aerodynamic theory, it's being changed by the plane suddenly falling out of the sky, in a way that's incompatible with our previous model.
So, I'd tweak your adage: "promise yourself to keep steering the plane mostly as normal while you think about lift, as long as you're in the reference class of events where steering the plane mostly as normal is the correct action."
Sure, but the landlords' rent/mortgage and grocery bills are being suspended too. If the landlord is a business with multiple employees, those employees' rent/mortgage and grocery bills are also suspended. It's option (1) all the way down.
Data from periods of forced conscription would correct for that bias, but would introduce the new bias of a 4-F control group. Is there a fancy statistical trick to combine the data and eliminate both biases?