The Nonlinear Library AF - Current AIs Provide Nearly No Data Relevant to AGI Alignment by Thane Ruthenis
Dec 15, 2023
12:55
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Current AIs Provide Nearly No Data Relevant to AGI Alignment, published by Thane Ruthenis on December 15, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum.
Recently, there's been a fair amount of pushback on the "canonical" views towards the difficulty of AGI Alignment (the views I call the "least forgiving" take).
Said pushback is based on empirical studies of how the most powerful AIs at our disposal currently work, and is supported by fairly convincing theoretical basis of its own. By comparison, the "canonical" takes are almost purely theoretical.
At a glance, not updating away from them in the face of ground-truth empirical evidence is a failure of rationality: entrenched beliefs fortified by rationalizations.
I believe this is invalid, and that the two views are much more compatible than might seem. I think the issue lies in the mismatch between their subject matters.
It's clearer if you taboo the word "AI":
The "canonical" views are concerned with scarily powerful artificial agents: with systems that are human-like in their ability to model the world and take consequentialist actions in it, but inhuman in their processing power and in their value systems.
The novel views are concerned with the systems generated by any process broadly encompassed by the current ML training paradigm.
It is not at all obvious that they're one and the same. Indeed, I would say that to claim that the two classes of systems overlap is to make a very strong statement regarding how cognition and intelligence work. A statement we do not have much empirical evidence on, but which often gets unknowingly, implicitly snuck-in when people extrapolate findings from LLM studies to superintelligences.
It's an easy mistake to make: both things are called "AI", after all. But you wouldn't study manually-written FPS bots circa 2000s, or MNIST-classifier CNNs circa 2010s, and claim that your findings generalize to how LLMs circa 2020s work. By the same token, LLM findings do not necessarily generalize to AGI.
What the Fuss Is All About
To start off, let's consider where all the concerns about the AGI Omnicide Risk came from in the first place.
Consider humans. Some facts:
Humans posses an outstanding ability to steer the world towards their goals, and that ability grows sharply with their "intelligence". Sure, there are specific talents, and "idiot savants". But broadly, there does seem to be a single variable that mediates a human's competence in all domains. An IQ 140 human would dramatically outperform an IQ 90 human at basically any cognitive task, and crucially, be much better at achieving their real-life goals.
Humans have the ability to plot against and deceive others. That ability grows fast with their g-factor. A brilliant social manipulator can quickly maneuver their way into having power over millions of people, out-plotting and dispatching even those that are actively trying to stop them or compete with them.
Human values are complex and fragile, and the process of moral philosophy is more complex still. Humans often arrive at weird conclusions that don't neatly correspond to their innate instincts or basic values. Intricate moral frameworks, weird bullet-biting philosophies, and even essentially-arbitrary ideologies like cults.
And when people with different values interact...
People who differ in their values even just a bit are often vicious, bitter enemies. Consider the history of heresies, or of long-standing political rifts between factions that are essentially indistinguishable from the outside.
People whose cultures evolved in mutual isolation often don't even view each other as human. Consider the history of xenophobia, colonization, culture shocks.
So, we have an existence proof of systems able to powerfully steer the world towards their goals. Some of these system can be strictly more powerfu...
Recently, there's been a fair amount of pushback on the "canonical" views towards the difficulty of AGI Alignment (the views I call the "least forgiving" take).
Said pushback is based on empirical studies of how the most powerful AIs at our disposal currently work, and is supported by fairly convincing theoretical basis of its own. By comparison, the "canonical" takes are almost purely theoretical.
At a glance, not updating away from them in the face of ground-truth empirical evidence is a failure of rationality: entrenched beliefs fortified by rationalizations.
I believe this is invalid, and that the two views are much more compatible than might seem. I think the issue lies in the mismatch between their subject matters.
It's clearer if you taboo the word "AI":
The "canonical" views are concerned with scarily powerful artificial agents: with systems that are human-like in their ability to model the world and take consequentialist actions in it, but inhuman in their processing power and in their value systems.
The novel views are concerned with the systems generated by any process broadly encompassed by the current ML training paradigm.
It is not at all obvious that they're one and the same. Indeed, I would say that to claim that the two classes of systems overlap is to make a very strong statement regarding how cognition and intelligence work. A statement we do not have much empirical evidence on, but which often gets unknowingly, implicitly snuck-in when people extrapolate findings from LLM studies to superintelligences.
It's an easy mistake to make: both things are called "AI", after all. But you wouldn't study manually-written FPS bots circa 2000s, or MNIST-classifier CNNs circa 2010s, and claim that your findings generalize to how LLMs circa 2020s work. By the same token, LLM findings do not necessarily generalize to AGI.
What the Fuss Is All About
To start off, let's consider where all the concerns about the AGI Omnicide Risk came from in the first place.
Consider humans. Some facts:
Humans posses an outstanding ability to steer the world towards their goals, and that ability grows sharply with their "intelligence". Sure, there are specific talents, and "idiot savants". But broadly, there does seem to be a single variable that mediates a human's competence in all domains. An IQ 140 human would dramatically outperform an IQ 90 human at basically any cognitive task, and crucially, be much better at achieving their real-life goals.
Humans have the ability to plot against and deceive others. That ability grows fast with their g-factor. A brilliant social manipulator can quickly maneuver their way into having power over millions of people, out-plotting and dispatching even those that are actively trying to stop them or compete with them.
Human values are complex and fragile, and the process of moral philosophy is more complex still. Humans often arrive at weird conclusions that don't neatly correspond to their innate instincts or basic values. Intricate moral frameworks, weird bullet-biting philosophies, and even essentially-arbitrary ideologies like cults.
And when people with different values interact...
People who differ in their values even just a bit are often vicious, bitter enemies. Consider the history of heresies, or of long-standing political rifts between factions that are essentially indistinguishable from the outside.
People whose cultures evolved in mutual isolation often don't even view each other as human. Consider the history of xenophobia, colonization, culture shocks.
So, we have an existence proof of systems able to powerfully steer the world towards their goals. Some of these system can be strictly more powerfu...