asvfertz

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

Humanity is building machines that will be smarter than we are at things we care about, things in which take individual and collective pride, domains of thought we originally invented and discovered. This will enable incredible things, but no honest person can deny that this will be a kind of grand humbling for humanity. No honest person can deny that there is at least some melancholy in contemplating it all, some change to the centrality we have ascribed to our own minds in the order of the world. My primary disappointment in the encyclical is that it fundamentally denies that grand humbling. It sidesteps the humbling altogether, saying that AI cannot “really” this and that. Instead, it puts the Church into the awkward role of the European technocratic regulatory advocate, which, love those regulations or hate them, is probably not what the world really needs from the Catholic Church at this moment. That is a shame, because this humbling—which will trigger a crisis in mass psychology and in our institutions when it dawns on people—is precisely the sort of thing I’d look to the Church for leadership on. What is the genuine and unique source of human meaning? What is the human touch in the era of thinking machines? These are the hard questions that the encyclical dodges.

Avoiding sun is being extremely bearish on the longevity/ biotech thesis Assume we will have peptides for everything. Retroviral DNA upgrades. Nanobot healing glands. Nature wants us dead at 35. Science will have us live to see the stars burn out.

JUST IN: Google DeepMind says its AI solved 9 open Erdős problems — considered among the hardest unsolved questions in mathematics.

Euros will do anything besides install air conditioning in their house

To create more complexity in the universe, not everyone is motivated by the precepts of humanism like you are. Monetary gain is a bad goal to have, shortsighted too. We build ASI to trascend and to create something better than ourselves (as that is the definition of the capabilities of an ASI)

Women have been the equivalent of pornbrained by romance novels and Disney and are expecting male partners that cater to the female fantasy of idealized emotional connection. These men mostly do not exist, men are different and imperfect and imo women should drop standards

I've spent the past few weeks reading 100s of public data sources about AI development. I now believe that recursive self-improvement has a 60% chance of happening by the end of 2028. In other words, AI systems might soon be capable of building themselves.