If the answer is “yes”, our definition of alignment kind of sucks.
On the plus side, if there really is no value to labour, then farm work must have been fully automated along with all the other roles.
On the down side, rich elites have historically had a very hard time truly empathising with normal people and understanding their needs even when they care to attempt it, so it is very possible that a lot of people will starve in such a scenario despite the potential abundance of food.
All roads lead to equality when the value of labour becomes 0 due to 100% automation.
Over history, lots of underclasses have been stuck that way for multiple generations, even without the assistance of a robot workforce that can replace them economically.
Some future rich class so empowered would be quite capable of treating the poor like most today treat pets. Fed and housed, but mostly neutered and the rest going through multiple generations of selective inbreeding for traits the owners deem interesting.
On the first, non-human pets rebelling is seen every time an abused animal bites their owner.
On the second, the hypothetical required by the scenario is that AI makes all human labour redundant: that includes all security forces, but it also means the AI moving around the security bots and observing through sensors is at least as competent as every human political campaign strategist, every human propagandist, every human general, every human negotiator, and every human surveillance worker.
This is because if some AI isn't all those things and more, humans can still get employed to work those jobs.
All those "jobs" you describe - and many more - would cease to be a thing, as their purported basis for existence would be no more. Any role that doesn't concretely contribute to our survival and advancement is just "busy work". People could theoretically continue to maintain some simulation of something that keeps them as a retirement, but it'd be meaningless.
Dogs in particular are pack animals, self-organisation amongst them wouldn't be at our level but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> All those "jobs" you describe - and many more - would cease to be a thing, as their purported basis for existence would be no more. Any role that doesn't concretely contribute to our survival and advancement is just "busy work". People could theoretically continue to maintain some simulation of something that keeps them as a retirement, but it'd be meaningless.
Yes?
I think you've missed the point, though.
When your opponent has all those skills to that level and doesn't sleep and simply applies all the surveillance tech that has already been invented like laser microphones and wall-penetrating radar that can monitor your pulse and breathing, how would you manage to rebel?
How would you find a like mind to organise with, when your opponent knows what you said marginally before the slow biological auditory cortex of the person you're talking to passes the words to their consciousness? Silicon is already that fast at this task.
And that's assuming you even want to. Propaganda and standard cult tactics observably prevent most rebellions from starting. LLMs are already weirdly effective at persuading a lot of people to act against their own interests.
The question is, to what extent would humans still set goals and priorities, and how.
From what I hear about the US and UK governments, even the elected representatives of these governments don't really set goals and priorities, so the answer is surely "humans don't".
Hopefully AI would help us better achieve our goals, but they still need to be our goals. I’m just not sure what that means. I don’t think anybody does.
That’s a major problem here, if we can’t reliably articulate our goals in unambiguous terms, how in earth can we expect AI to help us achieve them? The chances that whatever they end up achieving will match what we will actually like after the fact seems near zero.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
This is the "draw the rest of the owl"* of the alignment problem.
Or possibly the rest-of-owl of AI in general: Consider that there's still no level-5 self driving cars, despite road traffic law existing and the developers knowing about it since before they started trying.
No reason, except their (the rich or the AI) own personal desire to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folly
> They're absolutely useless alive from an economics perspective, and so would probably be better served ground up into fertilizer or some other actually useful form.
Indeed. "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else."
But while some may care about disassembling this world and all non-rich-human life on it to make a Dyson swarm of data centres, there's also the possibility each will compete for how many billions of sycophants they can get stoking their respective egos.
Or a handful of the poor become the new rich, which is usually what happens in that scenario.
For the latter point, consider that no matter how much the people of North Sentinel Island hate outsiders, they're not going to pose any risk to the rest of us.
Now, an elite whose membership includes those who want equality for the rest of us, that may create conditions for such a rebellion to succeed, but absent such from an insider (which could be encoded into the AI via either a bug or deliberately from whoever created the AI), some elite whose defence is handled by the kind of AI under consideration would not face any more of a threat from the wider population than we here in the west today face from the North Sentinel Islanders.
Note however that I'm not saying what will happen, but what is possible in various conditions. There's no guarantee of anything at this point.
So, if we increase automation and the ownership structures stay the same, this inequality will get worse, not better.
having your needs met without needing to do anything leads to disaster for mental health
The cost will exponentially increase over time and the systen will eventually collapse.
You also won't be able to keep your 'quality of life', unless government housing and rationing is your quality.
I feel like the foolishness of communism isn't taught enough in schools and every generation has to dress it up with new technology.
From what I'm seeing in the numbers, the big problem of the coming century is population collapse. Maybe I'm just too much of a believer in the intermediate value theorem, but I'm sure there has to be a way to arrive at a society with a sustainable usage of resources.
Is it really worse even if "whatever it means" is living in a post-scarcity society where everyone can shareel in the fruits of the AI's labor?
I'm not saying that's where this are necessarily going. But I am saying that that's what we should be aiming for, rather than trying to preserve the status quo.
The "problem" with many modern jobs is that they're divorced from the fundamental goal, which is one of: 1) Kill/acquire food, 2) Build shelter, or 3) Kill enemies/competitors/predators
The benefit of modern jobs is that they are much more peaceful ways for society to operate, freeing up time for humans to pursue art and other forms of expression.
What he got wrong was that this alienation results from capitalism.
It actually results from civilization. The people who built the pyramids across every continent, for example, performed assembly line-like work. Any large-scale project requires it. And large-scale projects are fundamentally necessary for most societies.
Capitalism was invented in the late 1700s.
I don't think Marx said that worker alienation was specific to capitalism, rather, his work was in describing the economic system of his time, and what that would entail for people living in it.
> It actually results from civilization.
I disagree, I can't think of anyone in Medieval Europe as alienated from their work as a modern sweatshop worker. Not that serfs had it better, but you get me.
Serfs were essentially slaves who had effectively 0 ownership over their output, so I'd strongly disagree with that sentiment.
I think the best argument for a time when there was almost 0 alienation of labor was when we were all hunter gatherers. Where every activity was closely connected to something necessary for survival.
As soon as we built larger societies, greater division of labor became necessary to efficiently support the society. And thus alienation of labor became much more pronounced.
If AI and robots are able to do all the jobs, being idle isn't the negative it has always been.
All through history, you needed lots of non-idle people to do all the work that needed to be done. This is a new situation we are coming upon.
Please note I’ve never had this problem before, until recently.
Sure, but the original sense of this is rather more fundamental than "does this timeline suck?"
Right now, it is still an open question "do we know how to reliably scale up AI to be generally more competent than we are at everything without literally killing everyone due to (1) some small bug when we created the the loss function* it was trained on (outer alignment), or (2) if that loss function was, despite being correct in itself, approximated badly by the AI due to the training process (inner alignment)?"
My point is: 1) that this binary is fundamentally insufficient to prescribe good and equitable outcomes for people - if the aligned AI flags overpopulation as a problem and kills a few billion people to improve QoL for the rest, is that good? It doesn’t take much creativity to go from this to the AI simply choosing the mean over the median, and concentrating untold wealth while billions starve or live on subsistence outside their walls. Is that good?
And 2) if you come up with a better definition, the parts of it that live inside the model weights cannot be disaggregated from the parts that live outside the model weights. From my perspective (and this article agrees) we have done a pretty excellent job of getting the model weights to work in a way that makes them follow instructions, and a pretty horrible job of suggesting or (gasp) implementing policy that actually creates a decent world in the presence of “aligned” AI.
https://github.com/space-bacon/SRT
This repository empirically proves computational semiotics.
The options aren't as binary as "die or The Culture", the cause of death can be something that feels positive to live through similar to fictional examples like the Stargate SG-1 episode where people live contentedly in a shrinking computer-controlled safe zone in an otherwise toxic planet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisions_(Stargate_SG-1)
Conversely "aligned" AI, the question obviously becomes "aligned with whom?": if famous historical villains such as Stalin or Genghis Khan had an AI aligned with them, this would suck for everyone else and in the latter case would freeze human development at a terrible level, but we can't even do that much yet.
> My point is: 1) that this binary is fundamentally insufficient to prescribe good and equitable outcomes for people - if the aligned AI flags overpopulation as a problem and kills a few billion people to improve QoL for the rest, is that good? It doesn’t take much creativity to go from this to the AI simply choosing the mean over the median, and concentrating untold wealth while billions starve or live on subsistence outside their walls. Is that good?
Your point *is* (part of) the alignment problem: we don't know what a good loss function is, nor how to confirm the AI is even implementing it if we did.
We also don't know how to debug proposed loss functions to train for the right thing (whatever that is), nor how to debug trained weights (against the loss function).
> And 2) if you come up with a better definition, the parts of it that live inside the model weights cannot be disaggregated from the parts that live outside the model weights. From my perspective (and this article agrees) we have done a pretty excellent job of getting the model weights to work in a way that makes them follow instructions, and a pretty horrible job of suggesting or (gasp) implementing policy that actually creates a decent world in the presence of “aligned” AI.
I really don't understand what you're getting at with this, sorry.
It's like how everybody imagines their lives will be great once they're a millionare, but they have no plan for how to get there. It's too easy to get lost dreaming of solutions instead of actually solving the important problems.
People like Simon Willson are noting the risk of a Challenger-like disaster, talking about normalisation of deviance as we keep using LLMs which we know to be risky in increasing critical systems. I think an AI analogy to Challenger would not be enough to halt the use of AI in the way I mean, but an AI analogy to Chernobyl probably would.
10% or 0.1%? Either way, that's not low! If airplanes crash with that probability, we would avoid them at all cost.
But beyond that there's still problems like concentration of power and surveillance, permanent loss of jobs, cyber and bio security. I'm not convinced things will go well even if we can avoid these problems though. I try to think about what the world will be like if AI becomes more creative than us, what happens if it can produce the best song or movie ever made with a prompt, do people get lost in AI addiction? We sort of see that with social media already, and it's only optimizing the content delivery, what happens when algorithms can optimize the content itself?
You think they aren't already? You're just inoculated by your exposure to pre-AI content - hence you're not the target audience - and thus it's not delivered to you as per your point about content delivery.
But what is even the distinction between "content delivery" and "content" in this context? "The medium is the message" is a saying old enough to have great grandkids. Does the device make the human irrevocably stare at it while wondering about made up stuff? Yes. Check. Done.
What's problematic about `p(doom)` is that it assumes there was a cohesive "us" in the first place. That's a very USian way of viewing things. OTOH, my individual `p(doom)` is in a superposition of 0 and 1, and I quite like it that way. Highly recommended.
If big corps made an offer like say “We will fund the next X years of your life 100%, for you to do all the things you wanted to do but never could because of work and bills” many people would probably take it, with the understanding that after those X years: euthanasia.
This would eliminate a vast amount of people from this world and leave behind only those who have chosen to stay and endure life: working hard, propping up the system that remains. The end of forced poverty.
(I’m reading Look To Windward by Iain M. Banks at the moment and I just got to the aside where he explains that any truly unbiased ‘perfect’ AI immediately ascends and vanishes.)
To make it clear, maybe most people would say they agree with https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... but if you read just a few of the rights you see they are not universally respected and so we can conclude enough important people aren't "aligned" with them.
[0] Need to consider there're a few humans potentially kept alive against their will (if not having a will to survive is a will at all) with machines for whatever reason.
Superintelligence would be different, most likely based on how societies or systems work, those being a class of intentionality that's usually not confined to a single person's intentions.
If you go by what the most productive societies do, the superintelligence certainly wouldn't harm us as we are a source for the genetic algorithm of ideas, and exterminating us would be a massive dose of entropy and failure.
- (Logic) => its subgoal: Not be turned off because that's a prerequisite to be able to do X
- (Logic) => Eliminate humans with their opaque and somewhat unpredictable minds to reduce chance of harm to it from 0.01% to 0.001%
If you see it as a paradox, maybe that says something about the merits of the technology…
Statements that have been utterly ridiculous from the dawn of life to modernity, backfilled to conveniently fit the zeitgeist.
So, like the past 20 years?
Labor = capital/energy in an AI complete world. We have to start from that basis when we talk about alignment or anything else. The social issues that arise from the extinction of human labor are something we have to solve politically, that's not something any model company can do (or should be allowed to do).
This isn't theory, ask the Luddites why they got so mad when their employers started buying machines to replace them. They didn't get richer and freer: they were thrown out to rot on the pavement, while their ex-employers kept 100% of the productivity increases.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Alignment exists to protect shareholder value.
If it creates industry wide outrage, shareholder value declines.
It making shareholders rich and other people poor won't.