
@DavidDuvenaud
Machine learning prof @UofT. Former team lead at Anthropic. Working on generative models, inference, & latent structure.
Fearing "loss of meaning" from AI job loss sounds trivial vs. fearing death. But I think desire for meaning evolved to prevent being ostracized, maybe fatally. Most sources of meaning (e.g. helping others, being skilled) are also reasons to support you. So it's a similar fear.
So in the distant past, loss of meaning was life-or-death. Then in modernity it became less so. But I think in the case of human economic irrelevance, in the long run it's a life or death matter again. So the heuristic that meaning is super important is becoming correct again.
Well said! This roughly matches my position.
Benjamin Todd@ben_j_toddMy estimates of existential risk from AI: • Inside view, current trajectory: ~2/3 • Inside view, if there's major action: ~1/3 • All-things-considered, giving weight to people more optimistic than me: 10-35% Why so high? I don't see a route to building agents more capable than us that never scheme against us, or to containing them if they do. If it's possible at all, it needs enormous care, which isn't happening. (And things could get even faster.) The likeliest path isn't everyone suddenly dying, though that's possible. It's a continuous but rapid loss of human influence, followed by AIs spending the future optimising for resource acquisition, if not something stranger like reward. Even if we solve alignment, ordinary economic and cultural competition (but at 10x or 100x speed), still seems likely to disempower most humans and result in a pretty alien economy, and I don't see an obvious way to prevent that. We'd also need to stop a small group locking in power (which seems possible but a major challenge in its own right). I see these as existential risks in the sense that the future is far worse than what would have been possible. The chance of everyone quickly dying or having lives much worse than today is lower. Why is my inside view not >2/3? We might muddle through in ways I can't see in advance. Maybe we get narrower aligned-enough systems, chaotically maintain a balance of power, and from there can move forward in a way that's significantly more good than bad. Most likely, there will be more warning shots, and the arguments that ASI are unsafe seem pretty obvious, so I expect more action to be taken than the current default. Why not lower? People often act as if the risk should be low until proven otherwise, but I don't know any strong outside views that justify a low prior (arguments like "technology has been good in the past" seem very weak). Our level of uncertainty is extreme, and this pushes you away from extremes, rather than anchoring you at 0%. Estimates below 10% feel overconfident.
The Lighthaven Post-AGI Workshop talks are out! post-agi.org/talks-berkeley From galaxy-brained theories of convergent morality, to hard-headed discussions of political power, here’s a 🧵of the talks:
@erikbryn explained that markets beat central planning when knowledge is local and planners lack compute. AI changes this, making centralization of economic and political power more competitive: youtube.com/watch?v=G1YTiX…
@SharmakeFarah14 Not clear which side you're agreeing with.
@gabriel_weil @Jess_Riedel @ESRogs I agree. I think I actually disagreed with you back at "Given the cost of that time, you need to spend a lot on safety for that to be worth it.". The arguments for astronomical waste cut both ways if you think there's a substantial chance of being wiped out.
There’s no textbook on post-AGI political economy. But there are recorded talks from the 2nd post-AGI workshop! All are now online at post-agi.org/talks/ A 🧵 of new highlights:
First, @richardmcngo‘s “favorite talk he’s ever given”: on mechanisms that emergently incentivize the deliberate destruction of value: youtube.com/watch?v=6sf3zQ…
@davidmanheim @deanwball @eligerhard Agree, but even if we enforce a "human actually in the loop", presumably many people will be willing to sell their notional oversight and liability for cheap.
Some new speakers at our post-AGI workshop: - @paulfchristiano on "A typical, reasonably-good future" - @erikbryn on "Post-AGI Centralized Coordination" (i.e. nber.org/system/files/c…) - Sean Lavelle of the U.S. Navy on "AGI and Military Strategic Instability" x.com/DavidDuvenaud/…