I operate by Crocker's rules.


Sorted by New


The Pointers Problem: Human Values Are A Function Of Humans' Latent Variables

I'm not convinced that we can do nothing if the human wants ghosts to be happy. The AI would simply have to do what would make ghosts happy if they were real. In the worst case, the human's (coherent extrapolated) beliefs are your only source of information on how ghosts work. Any proper general solution to the pointers problem will surely handle this case. Apparently, each state of the agent corresponds to some probability distribution over worlds.

Some AI research areas and their relevance to existential safety

with the exception of people who decided to gamble on being part of the elite in outcome B

Game-theoretically, there's a better way. Assume that after winning the AI race, it is easy to figure out everyone else's win probability, utility function and what they would do if they won. Human utility functions have diminishing returns, so there's opportunity for acausal trade. Human ancestry gives a common notion of fairness, so the bargaining problem is easier than with aliens.

Most of us care some even about those who would take all for themselves, so instead of giving them the choice between none and a lot, we can give them the choice between some and a lot - the smaller their win prob, the smaller the gap can be while still incentivizing cooperation.

Therefore, the AI race game is not all or nothing. The more win probability lands on parties that can bargain properly, the less multiversal utility is burned.

Inner Alignment in Salt-Starved Rats

This all sounds reasonable. I just saw that you were arguing for more being learned at runtime (as some sort of Steven Reknip), and I thought that surely not all the salt machinery can be learnt, and I wanted to see which of those expectations would win.

Inner Alignment in Salt-Starved Rats

Do you posit that it learns over the course of its life that salt taste cures salt definiency, or do you allow this information to be encoded in the genome?

Confucianism in AI Alignment

The hypotheses after the modification are supposed to have knowledge that they're in training, for example because they have enough compute to find themselves in the multiverse. Among hypotheses with equal behavior in training, we select the simpler one. We want this to be the one that disregards that knowledge. If the hypothesis has form "Return whatever maximizes property _ of the multiverse", the simpler one uses that knowledge. It is this form of hypothesis which I suggest to remove by inspection.

Confucianism in AI Alignment

Take an outer-aligned system, then add a 0 to each training input and a 1 to each deployment input. Wouldn't this add only malicious hypotheses that can be removed by inspection without any adverse selection effects?

What Decision Theory is Implied By Predictive Processing?

I don't buy the lottery example. You never encoded the fact that you know tomorrow's numbers. Shouldn't the prior be that you win a million guranteed if you buy the ticket?

What to do with imitation humans, other than asking them what the right thing to do is?

It sounds like you want to use it as a component for alignment of a larger AI, which would somehow turn its natural-language directives into action. I say use it as the capability core: Ask it to do armchair alignment research. If we give it subjective time, a command line interface and internet access, I see no reason it would do worse than the rest of us.

Do mesa-optimizer risk arguments rely on the train-test paradigm?

The problem arises whenever the environment changes. Natural selection was a continual process, and yet humans still aren't fitness-aligned.

Can you get AGI from a Transformer?

Re claim 1: If you let it use the page as a scratch pad, you can also let it output commands to a command line interface so it can outsource these hard-to-emulate calculations to the CPU.

Load More