Davidmanheim

Karma: 7,522

Davidmanheim Apr 5, 2025, 9:43 PM
4 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: ank’s comment on: Share AI Safety Ideas: Both Crazy and Not. №2
You very much do not know what you are talking about, as that linked “explanation” makes clear.
I’m not sure if you’re honestly confused, or intentionally wasting peoples time, but either way, you should spend an hour or two asking 4o to explain in detail why an expert in AI would object to this, and think about the answers.

Davidmanheim Apr 4, 2025, 4:36 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: ank’s comment on: Share AI Safety Ideas: Both Crazy and Not. №2
Yeah, you should talk to someone who knows more about security than myself, but as a couple starting points;
math-proven safe AIs
This is not a thing, and likely cannot he a thing. You can’t prove an AI system isn’t malign, and work that sounds like it says this is actually doing something very different.
You can do everything you do now, even buy or rent GPUs, all of them just will be cloud math-proven safe GPUs
You can’t know that a given matrix multiplication won’t be for an AI system. It’s the same operation, so if you can buy or rent GPU time, how would it know what you are doing?

Davidmanheim Apr 3, 2025, 6:42 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: SiobhanBall’s comment on: Centre for Effective Altruism Is No Longer “Effective Altruism”-Related
I think it’s better to play 5d chess—so I’m EA-adjacent-adjacent-adjacent-adjacent-adjacent.

Davidmanheim Apr 2, 2025, 4:09 AM
2 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: ank’s comment on: Share AI Safety Ideas: Both Crazy and Not. №2
This would benefit greatly from more in-depth technical discussion with people familiar with the technical, regulatory, and economic issues involved. It talks about a number of things that aren’t actually viable as described, and makes a number of assertions that are implausible or false.
That said, I think it’s directionally correct about a lot of things.

Davidmanheim Apr 1, 2025, 4:07 AM
10 points
1 ∶ 5
in reply to: Lorenzo Buonanno🔸’s comment on: Anthropic is not being consistently candid about their connection to EA
You seem to have ignored a central part of what was said by Daniela Amodei; “I’m not the expert on effective altruism,” which seems hard to defend.

Davidmanheim Apr 1, 2025, 4:03 AM
6 points
6 ∶ 0
in reply to: Greg_Colbourn ⏸️ ’s comment on: Anthropic is not being consistently candid about their connection to EA
As always, and as I’ve said in other cases, I.don’t think it makes sense to ask a disparate movement to make pronouncements like this.

Davidmanheim Apr 1, 2025, 3:59 AM
4 points
2 ∶ 2
in reply to: Greg_Colbourn ⏸️ ’s comment on: Anthropic is not being consistently candid about their connection to EA
You should add an edit to clarify the the claim, not just reply.

Davidmanheim Apr 1, 2025, 3:52 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: ank’s comment on: Share AI Safety Ideas: Both Crazy and Not. №2
In addition to the fundamental problem that we don’t know how to tell if models are safe after release, much less in advance, blacklists for software, web sites, etc. historically have been easy to circumvent, for a variety of reasons, effectively all of which seem likely to apply here.

Davidmanheim Mar 28, 2025, 9:20 AM
10 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: yanni kyriacos’s comment on: Ozzie Gooen’s Shortform
Strong +1 to the extra layer of scrutiny, but at the same time, there are reasons that the privileged people are at the top in most places, having to do with the actual benefits they have and bring to the table. This is unfair and a bad thing for society, but also a fact to deal with.
If we wanted to try to address the unfairness and disparity, that seems wonderful, but simply recruiting people from less privileged groups doesn’t accomplish what is needed. Some obvious additional parts of the puzzle include needing to provide actual financial security to the less privileged people, helping them build networks outside of EA with influential people, and coaching and feedback.
Those all seem great, but I’m uncertain it’s a reasonable use of the community’s limited financial resources—and we should nonetheless acknowledge this as a serious problem.

Davidmanheim Mar 24, 2025, 6:11 PM
7 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Optimistic Longtermism and Suspicious Judgment Calls
This seems great, but it does something which is kind of indefensible that I keep seeing, assuming longtermism requires consequentialism.

Davidmanheim Mar 23, 2025, 2:16 PM
9 points
4 ∶ 1
on: [Linkpost] Will the US experience a constitutional crisis before 2030?
Given the resolution criteria, the question is in some ways more about Wikipedia policies than the US government...

Davidmanheim Mar 22, 2025, 6:56 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Discussion Thread: Existential Choices Debate Week
What about the threat of strongly superhuman artificial superintelligence?

Davidmanheim Mar 22, 2025, 6:55 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Discussion Thread: Existential Choices Debate Week
If we had any way of tractably doing anything with future AI systems, I might think there was something meaningful to talk about for “futures where we survive.”

See my post here arguing against that tractability.

Davidmanheim Mar 22, 2025, 6:53 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: tylermjohn’s comment on: ...but is increasing the value of futures tractable?
we can make powerful AI agents that determine what happens in the lightcone

I think that you should articulate a view that explains why you think AI alignment of superintelligent systems is tractable, so that I can understand how you think it’s tractable to allow such systems to be built. That seems like a pretty fundamental disconnect that makes me not understand your )in my view, facile and unconsidered) argument about the tractablity of doing something that seems deeply unlikely to happen.

Davidmanheim Mar 21, 2025, 2:18 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: tylermjohn’s comment on: ...but is increasing the value of futures tractable?
There is a huge range of “far future” that different views will prioritize differently, and not all need to care about the cosmic endowment at all—people can care about the coming 2-3 centuries based on low but nonzero discount rates, for example, but not care about the longer term future very much.

Davidmanheim Mar 21, 2025, 5:55 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: tylermjohn’s comment on: ...but is increasing the value of futures tractable?
First, you’re adding the assumption that the framing must be longtermist, and second, even conditional on longtermism you don’t need to be utilitarian, so the supposition that you need a model of what we do with the cosmic endowment would still be unjustified.

Davidmanheim Mar 20, 2025, 3:20 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Maxime Riché 🔸’s comment on: ...but is increasing the value of futures tractable?
You make a dichotomy not present in my post, then conflate the two types of interventions while focusing only on AI risk—so that you’re saying that two different kinds of what most people would call extinction reduction efforts are differently tractable—and conclude that there’s a definition confusion.

To respond, first, that has little to do with my argument, but if it’s correct, your problem is with the entire debate week framing, which you think doesn’t present two distinct options, not with my post! And second, look at the other comments which bring up other types of change as quality increasing, and try to do the same analysis, without creating new categories, and you’ll understand what I was saying better.

Davidmanheim Mar 20, 2025, 3:10 PM
3 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: tylermjohn’s comment on: ...but is increasing the value of futures tractable?
- If you think extinction risk reduction is highly valuable, then you need some kind of a model of what Earth-originating life will do with its cosmic endowment
No, you don’t, and you don’t even need to be utilitarian, much less longtermist!

Davidmanheim Mar 20, 2025, 3:08 PM
4 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: ...but is increasing the value of futures tractable?
I agree that the examples you list are ones where organizing and protest played a large role, and I agree that it’s effectively impossible to know the counterfactual—but I was thinking of the other examples, several where there was no organizing and protest, but which happened anyways—which seems like clear evidence that they are contributory and helpful but not necessary factors. On the other hand, effectiveness is very hard to gauge!

The conclusion is that organizing is likely or even clearly positive—but it’s evidently not required, if other factors are present, which is why I thought it was overstated.

Davidmanheim Mar 20, 2025, 12:55 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: tylermjohn’s comment on: ...but is increasing the value of futures tractable?
Well-understood goals in agents that gain power and take over the lightcone is exactly the thing we’d be addressing with AI alignment, so this seems like an argument for investing in AI alignment—which I think most people would see as far closer to preventing existential risk.

That said, without a lot more progress, powerful agents with simple goals is actually just a fancy way of guaranteeing of a really bad outcome, almost certainly including human extinction.