
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The epistemic status thing
Please read this section because it is not a disclaimer for the sake of it.
I think the model I describe in this post is more likely wrong than right. I also think the probability of it being substantially correct is non-negligible and even more than that, and that this alone warrants writing it up and thinking about it seriously.
Throughout this post, I will write "X is the case" rather than "it seems plausible that X might be the case, though I am not certain." Every claim should be mentally prefixed with the appropriate hedge. I'm dropping the hedges not because I'm confident, but because a text where every sentence contains "it seems plausible that" becomes unreadable without actually making anyone more calibrated.
I should also flag that I'm writing this from a state of considerable frustration with the current state of affairs, and I this frustration may be load-bearing in places where it shouldn't be.
This is not about AI
AI risk is, at most, one illustration of the phenomenon I'm describing here, and not a particularly privileged one. Everything in this post would hold in a world where artificial intelligence [...]
---
Outline:
(00:10) The epistemic status thing
(01:03) This is not about AI
(01:51) The central claim: extinctive pressure
(04:54) Optimization does not target survival
(05:52) The worst of the best possible worlds
(09:10) Local environments are not stable, and we are actively destabilizing ours
(09:38) The entropy frame
(10:47) Feedback loops for survival are not tight
(12:02) Survival conflicts with optimization
(15:06) The ability to foresee landscape changes does not reliably help
(16:04) Requirements for survival under optimization
(17:21) The civilization path is not ergodic
(18:57) Survival does not scale
(20:15) The process is fat-tailed
(21:45) In the absence of sufficiently strong corrective mechanisms, the multiplicative fat-tailed process drives the system to zero
(26:00) Instrumental convergence: the strongest counterargument, and why it probably fails in practice
(29:08) Every emerging civilization is around the dumbest possible civilization
(31:01) Intelligence is not the bottleneck
(32:39) Caring about survival is not the same as surviving
(34:01) The progress dilemma: there are no good options
(36:22) Indirect supporting arguments
(39:03) Summary: you are punished for caring about survival
The original text contained 6 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
Source:
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
By LessWrongThe epistemic status thing
Please read this section because it is not a disclaimer for the sake of it.
I think the model I describe in this post is more likely wrong than right. I also think the probability of it being substantially correct is non-negligible and even more than that, and that this alone warrants writing it up and thinking about it seriously.
Throughout this post, I will write "X is the case" rather than "it seems plausible that X might be the case, though I am not certain." Every claim should be mentally prefixed with the appropriate hedge. I'm dropping the hedges not because I'm confident, but because a text where every sentence contains "it seems plausible that" becomes unreadable without actually making anyone more calibrated.
I should also flag that I'm writing this from a state of considerable frustration with the current state of affairs, and I this frustration may be load-bearing in places where it shouldn't be.
This is not about AI
AI risk is, at most, one illustration of the phenomenon I'm describing here, and not a particularly privileged one. Everything in this post would hold in a world where artificial intelligence [...]
---
Outline:
(00:10) The epistemic status thing
(01:03) This is not about AI
(01:51) The central claim: extinctive pressure
(04:54) Optimization does not target survival
(05:52) The worst of the best possible worlds
(09:10) Local environments are not stable, and we are actively destabilizing ours
(09:38) The entropy frame
(10:47) Feedback loops for survival are not tight
(12:02) Survival conflicts with optimization
(15:06) The ability to foresee landscape changes does not reliably help
(16:04) Requirements for survival under optimization
(17:21) The civilization path is not ergodic
(18:57) Survival does not scale
(20:15) The process is fat-tailed
(21:45) In the absence of sufficiently strong corrective mechanisms, the multiplicative fat-tailed process drives the system to zero
(26:00) Instrumental convergence: the strongest counterargument, and why it probably fails in practice
(29:08) Every emerging civilization is around the dumbest possible civilization
(31:01) Intelligence is not the bottleneck
(32:39) Caring about survival is not the same as surviving
(34:01) The progress dilemma: there are no good options
(36:22) Indirect supporting arguments
(39:03) Summary: you are punished for caring about survival
The original text contained 6 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
Source:
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

112,326 Listeners

130 Listeners

7,242 Listeners

559 Listeners

16,321 Listeners

4 Listeners

14 Listeners

2 Listeners