petrol_sniff_king
Aww :D
Hey! Just asking you because I’m not sure where else to direct this energy at the moment.
I spent a while trying to understand the argument this paper was making, and for the most part I think I’ve got it. But there’s a kind of obvious, knee-jerk rebuttal to throw at it, seen elsewhere under this post, even:
If producing an AGI is intractable, why does the human meat-brain exist?
Evolution “may be thought of” as a process that samples a distribution of situation-behaviors, though that distribution is entirely abstract. And the decision process for whether the “AI” it produces matches this distribution of successful behaviors is yada yada darwinism. The answer we care about, because this is the inspiration I imagine AI engineers took from evolution in the first place, is whether evolution can (not inevitably, just can) produce an AGI (us) in reasonable time (it did).
The question is, where does this line of thinking fail?
Going by the proof, it should either be:
- That evolution is an intractable method. 60 million years is a long time, but it still feels quite short for this answer.
- Something about it doesn’t fit within this computational paradigm. That is, I’m stretching the definition.
- The language “no better than chance” for option 2 is actually more significant than I’m thinking. Evolution is all chance. But is our existence really just extreme luck? I know that it is, but this answer is really unsatisfying.
I’m not sure how to formalize any of this, though.
The thought that we could “encode all of biological evolution into a program of at most size K” did made me laugh.
So, if just stop oil were peeing on people like… you are, I guess, you would be happy with that?
I know it feels really good to be angry and indignant, but I mean it, what have you done? Have you organized anything? Have you inspired people to take action?
You don’t have to agree with Just Stop. But the topic of conversation has come up. We’re talking about it. What will you do to save humanity from the sheer cliff it’s about to drive over?
My audiology is fine, I have a pretty big collection.
If you’ve got a better strategy than damaging plexiglass, why aren’t you doing anything? Get out there and prove them wrong, champ.
I don’t mean that as a dig, I mean seriously, go out there and do something. The world needs you.
I’ve been around enough to know they respect sometimes not being treated like children.
I’m not saying that a child who’s not ready for something should be forced to deal with it. The role of a parent is to be a safety net they can run back to every time the world gets a little too scary—literally, there are studies about this. But for a child that is ready, who wants to know, what I mean to find out is why you would reject them.
I don’t want to explain concpets that most actual adults cant understand, or even discuss in a mature way, to a child.
See, the worry I have is that things like this are the reason those adults don’t understand it. In some respects, these adults are still children because they were never given the opportunity to learn.
And it’s not like it can’t be useful to them. The fact that people can be abused, like certain aspects of it, then hate themselves for liking any part of it—I mean, I can think of a few “left alone with uncle” situations that really ring true here. If they can’t understand what they themselves are going through, I really don’t know what hope they have.
Just to reiterate, I’m not saying we should gather up every 4-year-old and show them a snuff film. What I am saying is that, to some degree, growing up is a self-directed process, and when somebody is ready to tackle something, they should at least be given the chance to experiment with those ideas. Even for adults: only as much as they can handle, and a warm, comfortable room when they can’t anymore.