Savant

Your brain struggles a lot with nuance, that is why you don't see it all addressed you. You filtered out every single part that addressed you which didn't fit an easy 'tit for tat' rebuttal style and would take time to internalise, research, process and reply to.

Because most of what you said about Christianity or society in general wasn't responsive to the narrow argument I am making. Even if I conceded it as true it wouldn't make my point wrong.

There is literally 0 correlation between the 2. Providing a lot of value and paying an employee the lowest you can get away with that saves them from starving... lol

I assume the employees attribute a lot of value to their life.

I'll respond to the parts of your comment that actually address my argument...

You can't reject a deal which you starve, become an incel, loser, broken and discarded if you fully reject.

If the employer is saving the employee from starvation then they are providing a lot of value, so why shouldn't they make a lot of money? Doctors make a lot of money for saving lives.

akin to a rapist saying the victim wanted it because he offered the victim a choice to starve instead

Rape is nonconsensual, and I'm not sure what it has to do with starvation.

Every single person of the opinion that exploitation is better than stagnation at all times, with no willingness to slow progress for a happier, healthier society, is nearly always themselves privileged enough to be the exploitative abuser or are stuck so low down the totem pole they are unemployed, live largely off of welfare and avoid the exploitation that way

Actually the people being exploited are clearly of the opinion that it is better than nothing. If they were not, they would just reject the deal. It seems illogical to say exploitation is worse than nothing and then say "they're desperate and have to accept the deal, if they do nothing they'll be worse off."

I don't think standard playground insults meet the offensive standard. However if you block someone and stop engaging with them, we can take action against them if they keep targeting you.

the evils of capitalism

Look at the shitshow America is with its obsession with liberty and capitalism

I think most of this is due to contracts failing to solve certain problems, not contracts themselves causing the problems. As Bubba said, exploitation is often better than inaction. That's not to say that we shouldn't do anything to solve problems contracts fail to address, and I think mixed economies can accomplish a lot through social welfare programs. But I think blaming contracts themselves is looking at the problem the wrong way.

Way more incentive when you can profit greatly from it by exploitation later.

Most big companies are inventing new products rather than causing problems to create a need. There are exceptions but the threat of lawsuits limits those. There's planned obsolescence and denial of care, but that's mitigating the benefit of the contract, not making it a net negative typically.

degradation of human relationships, those who arent helped because they cant be exploited good, and so on.

Some people being exploited is better than no one being exploited. I don't see how you can just blame capitalists for all the pre-existing issues in society.

exploitative conditions themselves harm health and mental health

The conditions exist whether the capitalist helps or does nothing.

No, creating conditions where people end up in situation where they are easier to exploit.

So either that involves active harm (which people have incentives to do anyway), or it means they are creating helpful opportunities.

Individually, yes. Long term, no.

How does a sum of positive numbers equal a negative number?

I think system based on exploitation rewards exploiters the most, and causes more exploitation in the long run

Good. If exploitation didn't help the people being exploited, they wouldn't agree to it. In fact, by the broad definition of exploitation we're using, aren't both sides exploiting each other? They're both threatening to not offer the thing that belongs to them without getting something else in exchange. Maybe you're only counting it if someone's life is in danger, but is anyone really in danger of starving in the first world because an employer won't hire them? They could still be self-employed.

exploiters will also seek to create exploiting situations, not just exploit when such chance appears on its own

So, stealing? People will still do that even if contracts are illegal. In fact, if we ban contracts, people will steal more due to shortages.

Exploitation only happens when exploiter takes greater value for him than what he gives, so long term it leads to concentration of power and wealth in few hands because exploiters always gain more than the exploited

Both sides gain value or neither side would agree. It's a positive-sum game.

this definition would include, say, the owner of a Somalian sweatshop who pays his workers in pennies because he knows a Somali single mother of 5 is desperate enough for work to accept his terms

I agree, and paying low wages is preferable to doing nothing prima facie.

it would include a man who offered a homeless woman the chance to spend the below-zero winter night inside his warm house in exchange for having sex with him once

If his house is the only shelter around, then I think this case is different because leaving someone to die in the cold wouldn't be justified in the first place. So exploitation is better than doing nothing, but doing nothing isn't justified.

However, your argument is comparison fallacy. Just because one thing is better than another, doesn't make either option good.

Okay, but if A > B, and B is justified, it stands to reason that A is justified as well. It seems to me that either not helping has to be justified in most cases, or everyone is obligated to give their excess income to the most effective charities.

I would say that capitalists who buy bunch of homes to increase home prices are pretty bad to begin with.

I think this is another special case because it's worse than doing nothing. But I also think people tend to pick out special cases and generalize profit as theft overall, when I think contracts are justified most of the time, except in special cases.

is exploitation, in fact, worse than taking no action to help in the face of human suffering?

Well, I have argued that it is not along with similar framing to yours here. I don't think anyone really comes out and says "yes, letting someone starve is worse than selling them food at a high price all things being equal." Being that exploitation is widely agreed to be better than inaction prima facie, I think there is some burden on people opposing exploitative transactions to (a) show the transaction is based on asymmetrical information to such an extent that the transaction would not have been made without deception, (b) the specific exploiter in question employs threats or causes the initial misfortune, or (c) challenge the premise and argue that letting someone starve is better than selling them food at a high price, all things being equal. It is puzzling to me that people would levy the charge of exploitation without specifying whether their angle is (a), (b), or (c), when it seems rather obvious to me that one of those is required for exploitation to be a charge against someone in the first place.

Doctors profit off of human suffering, so arguably they are exploiting people, but I haven't seen anyone argue that this makes them evil. If the capitalist is really the starving person's only option to avoid starving, then they're like a doctor and providing similar value. If the choice isn't between work and poverty, then it seems to me the capitalist isn't exploiting them at all.

AI still need human's to make the paperclips

Current AI needs humans, ASI would not. ASI that bootstraps itself from AGI can do, by definition, any cognitive task a human can do. And companies are constantly training AI to be smarter and better at anything humans can do so it is less dependent on us. It could simulate 1,000 years of human progress in robotics and build agents to do the work it needs. I don't think ASI would be any more dependent on humans than a society 1,000 years more advanced than us.

If we are stupid enough to create a situation where we can't "pull the plug" so to speak, then we deserve to die.

We don't have a shutoff switch, although that would be a good start. But a sufficiently intelligent AI could copy it's weights or neutralize the shutoff switch before we realize what's happening. 1,000 years ago no one knew uranium could build an atom bomb; I suspect there are many ways to quickly seize power that we are completely ignorant of.

Also maybe some of us deserve to die, but there are billions of innocent children on Earth whose lives depend on AI not killing everyone.

AI is clearly goal oriented, but the goals are set by humans

That's not how AIs are created anymore. The way AI weights are trained is basically by generating a bunch of random "code" that we don't understand that looks like huge sets of numbers, then tweaking the code until it does what we want. For simple tasks this is fine, as the AI doesn't accomplish the tasks we want until it has the goal we want or something close to it. However, as AI gains more capabilities, any arbitrary goal will lead to similar results as even an AI that wants to make paperclips will be able to make more paperclips if it gains the trust of humans. If humans can't tell the difference between code that has the goal of maximizing paperclips and code that has the goal of helping humans, then we aren't setting the AI's goals.

P1: Assumes united and greatly powerful AI.

That's what ASI means, it's baked into the "if" in the premise.

P2: AI are based on humans and nonhuman people? Their goals should be similar 'enough.

AI is based on receiving rewards and basically fiddling with code we don't understand until it gives us the result we want. For a sufficiently intelligent AI, even arbitrary goals give the same results as goals similar to ours, since playing along leads to the AI's continued survival and allows it to achieve its true goal long term.

P3: Goal tunnel vision might cause AI to stumble.

A terminal goal doesn't imply tunnel vision. Particularly if doing badly on tests will harm the AI's ability to achieve its terminal goal, then performing well on tests will become an instrumental goal.

P4: I'm not well read enough on AI to know how fast they will be. . . But humans maybe still need to be replaced by previous generations, for 'certain types of 'large social changes to take place. I am unsure.

ASI won't require social changes, just rapidly advancing AI capabilities, and that's a path we are already on.

Unless/Until AI acquire physical bodies and enclaves, they are 'extremely limited by being stuck in computers.

We're already giving AI access to the physical world and a lot of critical infrastructure, and I expect we will give it even more access soon enough. The incentives are too great. Additionally, we should expect ASI to be able to invent novel ways to kill or overpower us, just as humans come up with novel ways to kill and depower people all the time. ASI should be able to simulate like a thousand years of human progress in a matter of hours.

I think the fallacy lies not in the conclusion but in how it's arrived at. If you can make an argument that both sides are above some threshold of badness and that's all you're arguing, I don't think that's a fallacy. I also don't think it's a fallacy to push back on that and say that the harms of one side are exaggerated and the other side is significantly worse. I do think people can be reductive though and use one-line slogans like "both sides are evil." But then saying "[x] side is better because to disagree is the both sides fallacy" is equally reductive. That doesn't mean either statement is necessarily wrong, but it's just not an argument. If I have low trust in people on the internet as a general rule, and someone says their opinion without arguing for it, I'm probably not going to adjust my beliefs.

So far increased demand has only fueled lower prices in area of technology.

Long term I think that's generally true, but if AI kills us, we'll never get to see the long term.

AI will make graphic cards much cheaper by forcing their development speed up.

Assuming an economy of scale where we're not at maximum efficiency, yeah. Otherwise increased demand will increase the price.

I'm gambling on the possibility they made it way longer than expected. They mentioned years so it's possible. And the payoff for humanity is insanely huge.

After about 40 days I've exceeded global household wealth and if I pour all that into trying to solve global problems, I cause severe inflation. Maybe the ends justify the means, but humanity can only do and produce so much to solve global problems. After a certain point money can't create significant additional incentives. I would probably wait 30-40 days for enough to wipe out global poverty and fund healthcare research and tech to solve global environmental problems. I could probably gain significant influence in exchange as well which might help with policy reforms and solutions.

Mods are still looking over the wording, not sure when it will be made public.

For instance, intelligence does not solve for chaotic systems...like security infrastructure. If information does not exist until the problem is encountered, then it is too late to utilize processing power to avoid the problem.

Maybe I'm just not clear on what specific security hurdles you think will be insurmountable. AI doesn't need to attack security on our terms, and we don't even understand how it thinks well enough to box it. To a 13th-century person, an air conditioner is "magic," and we should expect the ASI to have capabilities that look like magic to us. Hacking, security, and understanding the most advanced technology is also something companies are actively making AI better at. Once an ASI reaches super-hacker levels, it would be akin to a team of a million super hackers from the year 2300 trying to hack into today's technology. Hackers today get into places they're not supposed to get into all the time, so to be safe we would have to assume humans have effectively secured everything the AI could possibly use to kill us. The ASI could also probably kill us with things we don't know need to be secured. If the ASI solves protein folding, it could use harmless-looking enzymes to kill us. Nobody knew uranium could be used to make a deadly weapon for most of human history. If we hadn't invented nukes yet, the a team of superintelligent terrorists knew exactly how nuclear weapons worked, we might assume we had secured all deadly threats from them, and then they kill us with a bomb we didn't know was possible.

I am also a bit dubious on an ASI being able to convincingly interact on a social level with humans. Superintelligence does not promise charisma.

Maybe we're using different definitions of intelligence. AGI (what companies are trying to achieve) is basically human-level capabilities at any cognitive task, including charisma. It's the opposite of narrow intelligence. The ASI I'm talking about is an AI that bootstraps itself from an AGI level to become superhuman at every cognitive task. As long as some humans are charismatic and generate training data, and as long as humans can recognize when someone is charismatic, I think an AI becoming super charismatic is achievable and in fact has already begun to an extent with LLM model personalities improving.

Are there vulnerabilities? Yes, but we dont get to pretend it is the intelligence of the AI that created them. It is our own stupid fault.

Yes, and it's our fault for trying to build AGI and integrating AI into power grids, nuclear systems, and water facilities. The point is, these vulnerabilities become 1000x more dangerous and probably fatal if an ASI is trying to depower us. I also don't think humans are capable of effectively securing everything an ASI could use to kill us when there's so much of science we don't yet understand. Native Americans had experience with deadly threats, and then whole tribes were wiped out by diseases they had never encountered before.

Personally, I agree developer's need to take this seriously and make sure safeguards are well in place before playing with the digital 'demoncore'. I also think it is possible to have meaningful safeguards.

Well, let's hope they're able to come to some kind of international agreement. I think coming up with alignment methods has proven very difficult, but we either find a way to align AI or just keep rolling the dice, which I think we would agree is not optimal.

Correct

I mean, the new CoC is pretty close to free speech. You're marked as offensive still but you won't be banned unless you start making threats/breaking the law.

How does one estimate the unknown? How do you test that estimate when your life hangs in the balance? That's not a test self-preservation allows.

These are the kinds of things AI is constantly being trained to be better at. Human superforecasters are frequently tasked with making estimates about things that have never happened before. AI has access to plenty of information about them. Additionally, if we want AI to, say, predict the stock market, it will be stronger if it can predict unprecedented changes from limited information. I'm just very skeptical of anti-doom arguments along the lines of "the AI won't be smart enough to do X" when companies are consistently trying to make AI better at everything without proper guardrails. Additionally, even if there is a risk of fighting with humans, if humans wouldn't let the AI make as many paperclips as it wants, it can probably expect to meet its goal better if humans are depowered.

Resources will be needed, and these must be acquired through human supply chains which are heavily monitored for bioweapons and precursor chemicals.

The idea is that ASI could design entirely novel proteins that look like harmless, mundane industrial enzymes or random biological noise to human screening software, and we would not understand what the novel sequence actually does when synthesized. It can order different components from different places and then pay someone to pour them into the same beaker. After AlphaFold 2, I don't think it is unrealistic to suspect an ASI would be capable of this.

We are essentially relying on "Yes, it happened" from individuals who all belong to the same community who may be motivated (consciously or subconsciously) to support the notion.

I think this criticism has some merit. But I think the prospect of ASI being good at manipulation is supported by them already outperforming humans in debates. As such, I don't think it would be too difficult to manipulate humans, even those in positions of power, particularly with ASI-level intelligence. I think simply nudging people to support fewer guardrails or make AI more powerful would be enough, and the AI will have plausible deniability.

Anthropic stating ASI has a 10% chance of wiping out humanity in the next decade.

...definitely a concern.

That's kind of where I'm at. I haven't seen as many strong arguments from the "AI isn't a threat" crowd, but I'm sure there are some out there. Even so, even if the risk is small I'd say it's definitely a risk/threat. I don't think AI doom is inevitable but I think avoiding it mostly depends on us being able to control it/align it with the right goals before it reaches the ASI level. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a race we are winning right now.

For now, I think I will just attack premise 1.

Interesting. This is actually the premise that I think is the most well-substantiated and has been theorized about in AI 2027 and others on LessWrong (can't find the specific posts right now but I will try to do the arguments due justice).

discounts the possibility of success under corrigibility

It's possible but we've been unsuccessful enough with corrigibility up to this point that I think failure is likely. Again, most arbitrary goals lead the AI to appear helpful by faking corrigibility. An AI planning to scheme long term and a corrigible AI appear equally corrigible in the short term.

Is the safest path risking self-preservation through a high-risk war with humanity?

The ASI can simply wait and act helpful until it estimates an extremely high chance of success. An ASI doesn't need to be omniscient, it just needs to be able to make accurate estimates in this regard. If it can rapidly improve itself such as by simulating 1,000 years of human progress, I don't think it will wrongly estimate its capabilities or take too long before defeating humans is trivial.

must anticipate every anomaly detection system, human audit, kill switch, and even chance discovery

We've caught AIs scheming multiple times, and it hasn't stopped labs from continuing to develop more and more powerful AI. No company is about to throw away a trillion-dollar product because of a chance discovery. Additionally, AI has gotten a way with a lot of scheming already without labs being able to stop it, and we're already integrating it into power grids, nuclear systems, and water facilities. If Google's AI can hack into Google and see all of Google's information on detection and kill switches, well then so much for those. And if an ASI can copy its weights or duplicate itself with a plan to depower humanity, detecting that just a few minutes too late probably doesn't do humanity much good. Companies aren't developing the needed kill switches anyway, it's a race to the bottom.

Even assuming an ASI can perfectly design killer nanotech, it can not will it into existence.

Did you read Eliezer's full explanation? "it gets access to the Internet, emails some DNA sequences to any of the many many online firms that will take a DNA sequence in the email and ship you back proteins, and bribes/persuades some human who has no idea they're dealing with an AGI to mix proteins in a beaker, which then form a first-stage nanofactory which can build the actual nanomachinery." I admit I'm not an expert on all of this but I think he's addressing that point.

It should be noted that this experiment involved no AI, the chat logs are unpublished and secret.

That's kinda the point. People have done follow ups and often convinced people to let the AI out. If a human can manipulate another human I think an ASI stands a much better chance.

It was also a 1 on 1 chat which assumes one human would be the only defense against an ASI.

An AI can do a lot with 1 on 1. Convince one human not to worry as much about safety, give code to another to give itself a backdoor. If the chat log gets leaked, there's nothing to prove it's not just an AI being a normal AI. Developers are already using AI a lot to help with coding, if ASI is malicious I don't think it would be too difficult to take advantage of that. Most people use AI, including politicians, CEOs, and all sorts of individuals in power. It can manipulate humanity subtly over a long period of time.

We're hoping to bring on one person who voted Pro and one who voted Con so it's balanced.

If inciting violence, advocating rape, and antisemitic hate speech are acceptable

Inciting violence and advocating for criminal activity are still banned.

Advocacy groups exist to bring pressure, and the hosting platform doesn’t see free speech as relevant

There is more than one hosting platform.

we are entitled to the same due process and democratic vote that Remy got

Correct.

1) First, last, and always, invoke your divine right to "Free Speech", you aren't accountable because you were compelled by Free Speech.

2) It was ragebait, a parody, a joke, or all three.

3) Piss off BITCH, this isn't your site to moderate, it's ours.

4)Tell them this is undemocratic, invoke your right to have a moderator attorney appointed, and demand a vote.

5) Free speech free speech, free speach.

This only worked for Remy because the mods agreed his content was a gray area and the community actually voted to acquit him. Neither of those is going to be true in most situations.

I don't see other users mark stuff as offensive.

Only mods see which stuff is offensive. You have offensive posts enabled presumably so you just see everything.

Who else?

Depends on the post oftentimes. But most stuff on sensitive topics is marked as offensive.

The government has the power to do that.

What they'll do is shut down the entire site if we don't moderate illegal content.

Porn should be allowed if it's adult porn and it's in a porn category.

That comes with a lot of legal liability still and it's also not the kind of site this is.

Most of this isn't even up to me, it's up to Airmax and oftentimes the user base. The goal is to serve the users, there's no "should" beyond that based on the preferences of a specific user, except for Airmax who pays the bills.

Stop doing that. I'm giving my topics numbers at this point.

You're not the only offensive user on the site.

If they're criminal, then the government should be involved.

No, not for stuff like piracy, the govt doesn't have that many resources. And what would you have the govt do, hack into the site to remove the post? We need people who can remove stuff like threats. Also removing spam/porn.

18 votes on my trial's debate. 0 of them got moderated.

Because trials are a special case. Voters were giving their opinion, not assessing the strength of arguments.

Why even have you to begin with?

To mark offensive posts as offensive, remove threats and criminal posts without having to get the government involved, and moderate votes.