Matthew_Barnett

Karma: 3,789

Matthew_Barnett 26 Nov 2024 22:10 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Matrice Jacobine’s comment on: What are some criticisms of PauseAI?
For example, a single percentage point of reduction of existential risks would be worth (from a utilitarian expected utility point-of-view) a delay of over 10 million years.
I’m curious how many EAs believe this claim literally, and think a 10 million year pause (assuming it’s feasible in the first place) would be justified if it reduced existential risk by a single percentage point. Given the disagree votes to my other comments, it seems a fair number might in fact agree to the literal claim here.
Given my disagreement that we should take these numbers literally, I think it might be worth writing a post about why we should have a pragmatic non-zero discount rate, even from a purely longtermist perspective.

Matthew_Barnett 25 Nov 2024 20:08 UTC
5 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Søren Elverlin’s comment on: What are some criticisms of PauseAI?
I think this is a reasonable point of disagreement. Though, as you allude to, it is separate from the point I was making.
I do think it is generally very important to distinguish between:
1. Advocacy for a policy because you think it would have a tiny impact on x-risk, which thereby outweighs all the other side effects of the policy, including potentially massive near-term effects, because reducing x-risk simply outweighs every other ethical priority by many orders of magnitude.
2. Advocacy for a policy because you think it would have a moderate or large effect on x-risk, and is therefore worth doing because reducing x-risk is an important ethical priority (even if it isn’t, say, one million times more important than every other ethical priority combined).
I’m happy to debate (2) on empirical grounds, and debate (1) on ethical grounds. I think the ethical philosophy behind (1) is quite dubious and resembles the type of logic that is vulnerable to Pascal-mugging. The ethical philosophy behind (2) seems sound, but the empirical basis is often uncertain.

Matthew_Barnett 24 Nov 2024 12:01 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 2
in reply to: Matrice Jacobine’s comment on: What are some criticisms of PauseAI?
I think it would require an unreasonably radical interpretation of longtermism to believe, for example, that delaying something as valuable as a cure for cancer by 10 years (or another comparably significant breakthrough) would be justified, let alone overwhelmingly outweighed, because of an extremely slight and speculative anticipated positive impact on existential risk. Similarly, I think the same is true about AI, if indeed pausing the technology would only have a very slight impact on existential risk in expectation.

I’ve already provided a pragmatic argument for incorporating at least a slight amount of time discounting into one’s moral framework, but I want to reemphasize and elaborate on this point for clarity. Even if you are firmly committed to the idea that we should have no pure rate of time preference—meaning you believe future lives and welfare matter just as much as present ones—you should still account for the fact that the future is inherently uncertain. Our ability to predict the future diminishes significantly the farther we look ahead. This uncertainty should generally lead us to favor not delaying the realization of clearly good outcomes unless there is a strong and concrete justification for why the delay would yield substantial benefits.

Longtermism, as I understand it, is simply the idea that the distant future matters a great deal and should be factored into our decision-making. Longtermism does not—and should not—imply that we should essentially ignore enormous, tangible and clear short-term harms just because we anticipate extremely slight and highly speculative long-term gains that might result from a particular course of action.

I recognize that someone who adheres to an extremely strong and rigid version of longtermism might disagree with the position I’m articulating here. Such a person might argue that even a very small and speculative reduction in existential risk justifies delaying massive and clear near-term benefits. However, I generally believe that people should not adopt this kind of extreme strong longtermism. It leads to moral conclusions that are unreasonably detached from the realities of suffering and flourishing in the present and near future, and I think this approach undermines the pragmatic and balanced principles that arguably drew many of us to longtermism in the first place.

Matthew_Barnett 24 Nov 2024 11:11 UTC
17 points
2 ∶ 6
on: What are some criticisms of PauseAI?
I agree with many of the things other people have already mentioned. However, I want to add one additional argument against PauseAI, which I believe is quite important and worth emphasizing clearly:

In general, hastening technological progress tends to be a good thing. For example, if a cure for cancer were to arrive in 5 years instead of 15 years, that would be very good. The earlier arrival of the cure would save many lives and prevent a lot of suffering for people who would otherwise endure unnecessary pain or death during those additional 10 years. The difference in timing matters because every year of delay means avoidable harm continues to occur.

I believe this same principle applies to AI, as I expect its main effects will likely be overwhelmingly positive. AI seems likely to accelerate economic growth, accelerate technological progress, and significantly improve health and well-being for billions of people. These outcomes are all very desirable, and I would strongly prefer for them to arrive sooner rather than later. Delaying these benefits unnecessarily means forgoing better lives, better health, and better opportunities for many people in the interim.

Of course, there are exceptions to this principle, as it’s not always the case that hastening technology is beneficial. Sometimes it is indeed wiser to delay the deployment of a new technology if the delay would substantially increase its safety or reduce risks. I’m not dogmatic about hastening technology and I recognize there are legitimate trade-offs here. However, in the case of AI, I am simply not convinced that delaying its development and deployment is justified on current margins.

To make this concrete, let’s say that delaying AI development by 5 years would reduce existential risk by only 0.001 percentage points. I would not support such a trade-off. From the perspective of any moral framework that incorporates even a slight discounting of future consumption and well-being, such a delay would be highly undesirable. There are pragmatic reasons to include time discounting in a moral framework: the future is inherently uncertain, and the farther out we try to forecast, the less predictable and reliable our expectations about the future become. If we can bring about something very good sooner, without significant costs, we should almost always do so rather than being indifferent to when it happens.

However, if the situation were different—if delaying AI by 5 years reduced existential risk by something like 10 percentage points—then I think the case for PauseAI would be much stronger. In such a scenario, I would seriously consider supporting PauseAI and might even advocate for it loudly. That said, I find this kind of large reduction in existential risk from a delay in AI development to be implausible, partly for the reasons others in this thread have already outlined.

Matthew_Barnett 22 Nov 2024 8:39 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: MichaelDickens’s comment on: Where I Am Donating in 2024

According to the standard story where an unaligned AI has some optimization target and then kills all humans in the interest of pursuing that target (e.g. a paperclip maximizer), it seems unlikely that this AI would experience much happiness (granting that it’s capable of happiness) because its own happiness is not the optimization target.

I agree that this is the standard story regarding AI risk, but I haven’t seen convincing arguments that support this specific model.

In other words, I see no compelling evidence to believe that future AIs will have exclusively abstract, disconnected goals—like maximizing paperclip production—and that such AIs would fail to generate significant amounts of happiness, either as a byproduct of their goals or as an integral part of achieving them.

(Of course, it’s crucial to avoid wishful thinking. A favorable outcome is by no means guaranteed, and I’m not arguing otherwise. Instead, my point is that the core assumption underpinning this standard narrative seems weakly argued and poorly substantiated.)

The scenario I find most plausible is one in which AIs have a mixture of goals, much like humans. Some of these goals will likely be abstract, while others will be directly tied to the AI’s internal experiences and mental states.

Just as humans care about their own happiness but also care about external reality—such as the impact they have on the world or what happens after they’re dead—I expect that many AIs will place value on both their own mental states and various aspects of external reality.

This ultimately depends on how AIs are constructed and trained, of course. However, as you mentioned, there are some straightforward reasons to anticipate parallels between how goals emerge in animals and how they might arise in AIs. For example, robots and some other types of AIs will likely be trained through reinforcement learning. While RL on computers isn’t identical to the processes by which animals learn, it is similar enough in critical ways to suggest that these parallels could have significant implications.

Matthew_Barnett 21 Nov 2024 16:55 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: MichaelDickens’s comment on: Where I Am Donating in 2024
What’s your credence that humans create a utopia in the alternative? Depending on the strictness of one’s definition, I think a future utopia is quite unlikely either way, whether we solve alignment or not.

It seems you expect future unaligned AIs will either be unconscious or will pursue goals that result in few positive conscious experiences being created. I am not convinced of this myself. At the very least, I think such a claim demands justification.

Given the apparent ubiquity of consciousness in the animal kingdom, and the anticipated sophistication of AI cognition, it is difficult for me to imagine a future essentially devoid of conscious life, even if that life is made of silicon and it does not share human preferences.

Matthew_Barnett 21 Nov 2024 10:34 UTC
8 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Where I Am Donating in 2024
This argument only makes sense if you have a very low P(doom) (like <0.1%) or if you place minimal value on future generations. Otherwise, it’s not worth recklessly endangering the future of humanity to bring utopia a few years (or maybe decades) sooner. The math on this is really simple—bringing AI sooner only benefits the current generation, but extinction harms all future generations. You don’t need to be a strong longtermist, you just need to accord significant value to people who aren’t born yet.

Here’s a counter-argument that relies on the following assumptions:

First, suppose you believe unaligned AIs would still be conscious entities, capable of having meaningful, valuable experiences. This could be because you think unaligned AIs will be very cognitively sophisticated, even if they don’t share human preferences.

Second, assume you’re a utilitarian who doesn’t assign special importance to whether the future is populated by biological humans or digital minds. If both scenarios result in a future full of happy, conscious beings, you’d view them as roughly equivalent. In fact, you might even prefer digital minds if they could exist in vastly larger numbers or had features that enhanced their well-being relative to biological life.

With those assumptions in place, consider the following dilemma:
1. If AI is developed soon, there’s some probability p that billions of humans will die due to misaligned AI—an obviously bad outcome. However, if these unaligned AIs replace us, they would presumably still go on to create a thriving and valuable civilization from a utilitarian perspective, even though humanity would not be part of that future.
2. If AI development is delayed by several decades to ensure safety, billions of humans will die in the meantime from old age who could otherwise have been saved by accelerated medical advancements enabled by earlier AI. This, too, is clearly bad. However, humanity would eventually develop AI safely and go on to build a similarly valuable civilization, just after a significant delay.
Given these two options, a utilitarian doesn’t have strong reasons to prefer the second approach. While the first scenario carries substantial risks, it does not necessarily endanger the entire long-term future. Instead, the primary harm seems to fall on the current generation: either billions of people die prematurely due to unaligned AI, or they die from preventable causes like aging because of delayed technological progress. In both cases, the far future—whether filled with biological or digital minds—remains intact and flourishing under these assumptions.

In other words, there simply isn’t a compelling utilitarian argument for choosing to delay AI in this dilemma.

Do you have any thoughts on the assumptions underlying this dilemma, or its conclusion?

Matthew_Barnett 5 Nov 2024 18:41 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jaime Sevilla’s comment on: We should prevent the creation of artificial sentience
TL;DR...
Restrictions to advanced AI would likely delay technological progress and potentially require a state of surveillance.
To be clear, I wasn’t arguing against generic restrictions on advanced AIs. In fact, I advocated for restrictions, in the form of legal protections on AIs against abuse and suffering. In my comment, I was solely arguing against a lengthy moratorium, rather than arguing against more general legal rules and regulations.
Given my argument, I’d go further than saying that the relevant restrictions I was arguing against would “likely delay technological progress”. They almost certainly would have that effect, since I was talking about a blanket moratorium, rather than more targeted or specific rules governing the development of AI (which I support).
I think what is missing for this argument to go through is arguing that the costs in 2 are higher than the cost of mistreated Artificial Sentience.
A major reason why I didn’t give this argument was because I already conceded that we should have legal protections against mistreated Artificial Sentience. The relevant comparison is not between a scenario with no restrictions on mistreatment vs. restrictions that prevent against AI mistreatment, but rather between the moratorium discussed in the post vs. more narrowly scoped regulations that specifically protect AIs from mistreatment.
Let me put this another way. Let’s say we were to impose a moratorium on advanced AI, for the reasons given in this post. The idea here is presumably that, during the moratorium, society will deliberate on what we should do with advanced AI. After this deliberation concludes, society will end the moratorium, and then implement whatever we decided on.
What types of things might we decide to do, while deliberating? A good guess is that, upon the conclusion of the moratorium, we could decide to implement strong legal protections against AI mistreatment. In that case, the result of the moratorium appears identical to the legal outcome that I had already advocated, except with one major difference: with the moratorium, we’d have spent a long time with no advanced AI.
It could well be the case that spending, say, 50 years with no advanced AI is always better than nothing—from a utilitarian point of view—because AIs might suffer on balance more than they are happy, even with strong legal protections. If that is the case, the correct conclusion to draw is that we should never build AI, not that we should spend 50 years deliberating. Since I didn’t think this was the argument being presented, I didn’t spend much time arguing against the premise supporting this conclusion.
Instead, I wanted to focus on the costs of delay and deliberation, which I think are quite massive and often overlooked. Given these costs, if the end result of the moratorium is that we merely end up with the same sorts of policies that we could have achieved without the delay, the moratorium seems flatly unjustified. If the result of the moratorium is that we end up with even worse policies, as a result of the cultural effects I talked about, then the moratorium is even less justified.

Matthew_Barnett 30 Oct 2024 23:09 UTC
14 points
3 ∶ 3
on: Pausing AI is the only safe approach to digital sentience
(I’m repeating something I said in another comment I wrote a few hours ago, but adapted to this post.)
On a basic level, I agree that we should take artificial sentience extremely seriously, and think carefully about the right type of laws to put in place to ensure that artificial life is able to happily flourish, rather than suffer. This includes enacting appropriate legal protections to ensure that sentient AIs are treated in ways that promote well-being rather than suffering. Relying solely on voluntary codes of conduct to govern the treatment of potentially sentient AIs seems deeply inadequate, much like it would be for protecting children against abuse. Instead, I believe that establishing clear, enforceable laws is essential for ethically managing artificial sentience.
That said, I’m skeptical that a moratorium is the best policy.
From a classical utilitarian perspective, the imposition of a lengthy moratorium on the development of sentient AI seems like it would help to foster a more conservative global culture—one that is averse towards not only creating sentient AI, but also potentially towards other forms of life-expanding ventures, such as space colonization. Classical utilitarianism is typically seen as aiming to maximize the number of conscious beings in existence, advocating for actions that enable the flourishing and expansion of life, happiness, and fulfillment on as broad a scale as possible. However, implementing and sustaining a lengthy ban on AI would likely require substantial cultural and institutional shifts away from these permissive and ambitious values.
To enforce a moratorium of this nature, societies would likely adopt a framework centered around caution, restriction, and a deep-seated aversion to risk—values that would contrast sharply with those that encourage creating sentient life and proliferating this life on as large of a scale as possible. Maintaining a strict stance on AI development might lead governments, educational institutions, and media to promote narratives emphasizing the potential dangers of sentience and AI experimentation, instilling an atmosphere of risk-aversion rather than curiosity, openness, and progress. Over time, these narratives could lead to a culture less inclined to support or value efforts to expand sentient life.
Even if the ban is at some point lifted, there’s no guarantee that the conservative attitudes generated under the ban would entirely disappear, or that all relevant restrictions on artificial life would completely go away. Instead, it seems more likely that many of these risk-averse attitudes would remain even after the ban is formally lifted, given the initially long duration of the ban, and the type of culture the ban would inculcate.
In my view, this type of cultural conservatism seems likely to, in the long run, undermine the core aims of classical utilitarianism. A shift toward a society that is fearful or resistant to creating new forms of life may restrict humanity’s potential to realize a future that is not only technologically advanced but also rich in conscious, joyful beings. If we accept the idea of ‘value lock-in’—the notion that the values and institutions we establish now may set a trajectory that lasts for billions of years—then cultivating a culture that emphasizes restriction and caution may have long-term effects that are difficult to reverse. Such a locked-in value system could close off paths to outcomes that are aligned with maximizing the proliferation of happy, meaningful lives.
Thus, if a moratorium on sentient AI were to shape society’s cultural values in a way that leans toward caution and restriction, I think the enduring impact would likely contradict classical utilitarianism’s ultimate goal: the maximal promotion and flourishing of sentient life. Rather than advancing a world with greater life, joy, and meaningful experiences, these shifts might result in a more closed-off, limited society, actively impeding efforts to create a future rich with diverse and conscious life forms.
(Note that I have talked mainly about these concerns from a classical utilitarian point of view. However, I concede that a negative utilitarian or antinatalist would find it much easier to rationally justify a long moratorium on AI.
It is also important to note that my conclusion holds even if one does not accept the idea of a ‘value lock-in’. In that case, longtermists should likely focus on the near-term impacts of their decisions, as the long-term impacts of their actions may be impossible to predict. And I’d argue that a moratorium would likely have a variety of harmful near-term effects.)

Matthew_Barnett 30 Oct 2024 21:22 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Toby_Ord’s comment on: We should prevent the creation of artificial sentience
Given your statement that “a 50-year delay in order to make this monumentally importance choice properly would seem to be a wise and patient decision by humanity”, I’m curious if you have any thoughts on the comment I just wrote, particularly the part arguing against a long moratorium on creating sentient AI, and how this can be perceived from a classical utilitarian perspective.

Matthew_Barnett 30 Oct 2024 21:08 UTC
6 points
2 ∶ 1
on: We should prevent the creation of artificial sentience
On a basic level, I agree that we should take artificial sentience extremely seriously, and think carefully about the right type of laws to put in place to ensure that artificial life is able to happily flourish, rather than suffer. This includes enacting appropriate legal protections to ensure that sentient AIs are treated in ways that promote well-being rather than suffering. Relying solely on voluntary codes of conduct to govern the treatment of potentially sentient AIs seems deeply inadequate, much like it would be for protecting children against abuse. Instead, I believe that establishing clear, enforceable laws is essential for ethically managing artificial sentience.
However, it currently seems likely to me that sufficiently advanced AIs will be sentient by default. And if advanced AIs are sentient by default, then instituting a temporary ban on sentient AI development, say for 50 years, would likely be functionally equivalent to pausing the entire field of advanced AI for that period.
Therefore, despite my strong views on AI sentience, I am skeptical about the idea of imposing a moratorium on creating sentient AIs, especially in light of my general support for advancing AI capabilities.
Why I think sufficiently advanced AIs will likely be sentient by default
The idea that sufficiently advanced AIs will likely be sentient by default can be justified by three basic arguments:
1. Sentience appears to have evolved across a wide spectrum of the animal kingdom, from mammals to cephalopods, indicating it likely serves a critical functional purpose. In general, it is rare for a complex trait like sentience to evolve independently in numerous separate species unless it provides a strong adaptive advantage. This suggests that sentience likely plays a fundamental role in an organism’s behavior and survival, meaning it could similarly arise in artificial systems that develop comparable complexity and sufficient behavioral similarity.
2. Many theories of consciousness imply that consciousness doesn’t arise from a specific, rare set of factors but rather could emerge from a wide variety of psychological states and structural arrangements. This means that a variety of complex, sufficiently advanced AIs might meet the conditions for consciousness, making sentience a plausible outcome of advanced AI development.
3. At least some AIs will be trained in environments that closely parallel human developmental environments. Current AIs are trained extensively on human cultural data, and future AIs, particularly those with embodied forms like robots, will likely acquire skills in real-world settings similar to those in which humans develop. As these training environments mirror the kinds of experiences that foster human consciousness, it stands to reason that sentience could emerge in AIs trained under these conditions, particularly as their learning processes and interactions with the world grow in sophistication.
Why I’m skeptical of a general AI moratorium
My skepticism of a general AI moratorium contrasts with those of (perhaps) most EAs, who appear to favor such a ban, for both AI safety reasons and to protect AIs themselves (as you argue here). I’m instead inclined to highlight the enormous costs of such a ban, compared to a variety of cheaper alternatives, such as targeted regulation that merely ensures AIs are strongly protected against abuse. These costs appear to include:
- The opportunity cost of delaying 50 years of AI-directed technological progress. Since advanced AI can likely greatly accelerate technological progress, delaying advanced AI delays an enormous amount of technology that can be used to help people. This action would likely cause the premature deaths of billions of people, who could have otherwise had long, healthy and rich lives, but will instead die of aging-related diseases.
- Enforcing a ban on advanced AI for such an extended period would require unprecedented levels of global surveillance, centralized control, and possibly a global police state. The economic incentives for developing AI are immense, and preventing organizations or countries from circumventing the ban would necessitate sweeping surveillance and policing powers, fundamentally reshaping global governance in a restrictive and intrusive manner. This outcome seems plainly negative on its face.
Moreover, from a classical utilitarian perspective, the imposition of a 50-year moratorium on the development of sentient AI seems like it would help to foster a more conservative global culture—one that is averse towards not only creating sentient AI, but also potentially towards other forms of life-expanding ventures, such as space colonization. Classical utilitarianism is typically seen as aiming to maximize the number of conscious beings in existence, advocating for actions that enable the flourishing and expansion of life, happiness, and fulfillment on as broad a scale as possible. However, implementing and sustaining a lengthy ban on AI would likely require substantial cultural and institutional shifts away from these permissive and ambitious values.
To enforce a moratorium of this nature, societies would likely adopt a framework centered around caution, restriction, and a deep-seated aversion to risk—values that would contrast sharply with those that encourage creating sentient life and proliferating this life on as large of a scale as possible. Maintaining a strict stance on AI development might lead governments, educational institutions, and media to promote narratives emphasizing the potential dangers of sentience and AI experimentation, instilling an atmosphere of risk-aversion rather than curiosity, openness, and progress. Over time, these narratives could lead to a culture less inclined to support or value efforts to expand sentient life.
Even if the ban is at some point lifted, there’s no guarantee that the conservative attitudes generated under the ban would entirely disappear, or that all relevant restrictions on artificial life would completely go away. Instead, it seems more likely that many of these risk-averse attitudes would remain even after the ban is formally lifted, given the initially long duration of the ban, and the type of culture the ban would inculcate.
In my view, this type of cultural conservatism seems likely to, in the long run, undermine the core aims of classical utilitarianism. A shift toward a society that is fearful or resistant to creating new forms of life may restrict humanity’s potential to realize a future that is not only technologically advanced but also rich in conscious, joyful beings. If we accept the idea of ‘value lock-in’—the notion that the values and institutions we establish now may set a trajectory that lasts for billions of years—then cultivating a culture that emphasizes restriction and caution may have long-term effects that are difficult to reverse. Such a locked-in value system could close off paths to outcomes that are aligned with maximizing the proliferation of happy, meaningful lives.
Thus, if a moratorium on sentient AI were to shape society’s cultural values in a way that leans toward caution and restriction, I think the enduring impact would likely contradict classical utilitarianism’s ultimate goal: the maximal promotion and flourishing of sentient life. Rather than advancing a world with greater life, joy, and meaningful experiences, these shifts might result in a more closed-off, limited society, actively impeding efforts to create a future rich with diverse and conscious life forms.
(Note that I have talked mainly about these concerns from a classical utilitarian point of view, and a person-affecting point of view. However, I concede that a negative utilitarian or antinatalist would find it much easier to rationally justify a long moratorium on AI.
It is also important to note that my conclusion holds even if one does not accept the idea of a ‘value lock-in’. In that case, longtermists should likely focus on the near-term impacts of their decisions, as the long-term impacts of their actions may be impossible to predict. And my main argument here is that the near term impacts of such a moratorium are likely to be harmful in a variety of ways.)

Matthew_Barnett 5 Sep 2024 21:03 UTC
5 points
2 ∶ 1
on: Against Explosive Growth
Humans don’t like shocks. Explosive growth would definitely be a shock. We tend to like very gradual changes, or brief flirts with big change.
Speaking generally, it is true that humans are frequently hesitant to change the status quo, and economic shocks can be quite scary to people. This provides one reason to think that people will try to stop explosive growth, and slow down the rate of change.
On the other hand, it’s important to recognize the individual incentives involved here. On an individual, personal level, explosive growth is equivalent to a dramatic rise in real income over a short period of time. Suppose you were given the choice of increasing your current income by several-fold over the next few years. For example, if your real income is currently $100,000/year, then you would see it increase to $300,000/year in two years. Would you push back against this change? Would this rise in your personal income be too fast for your tastes? Would you try to slow it down?
Even if explosive growth is dramatic and scary on a collective and abstract level, it is not clearly bad on an individual level. Indeed, it seems quite clear to me that most people would be perfectly happy to see their incomes rise dramatically, even at a rate that far exceeded historical norms, unless they recognized a substantial and grave risk that would accompany this rise in their personal income.
If we assume that people collectively follow what is in each of their individual interests, then we should conclude that incentives are pretty strongly in favor of explosive growth (at least when done with low risk), despite the fact that this change would be dramatic and large.

Matthew_Barnett 5 Aug 2024 22:15 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Value fragility and AI takeover
In general, to me it seems quite fruitful to examine in more detail whether, in fact, multipolarity of various kinds might alleviate concerns about value fragility. And to those who have the intuition that it would (especially in cases, like Multipolar value fragility, where agent A’s exact values aren’t had by any of agents 1-n), I’d be curious to hear the case spelled out in more detail.
Here’s a case that I roughly believe: multipolarity means that there’s a higher likelihood that one’s own values will be represented because it gives them the opportunity to literally live in, and act in the world to bring about outcomes they personally want.
This case is simple enough, and it’s consistent with the ordinary multipolarity the world already experiences. Consider an entirely selfish person. Now, divide the world into two groups: the selfish person (which we call Group A) and the rest of the world (which we call Group B).
Group A and Group B have very different values, even “upon reflection”. Group B is also millions or billions of times more powerful than Group A (as it comprises the entire world minus the selfish individual). Therefore, on a naive analysis, you might expect Group B to “take over the world” and then implement its values without any regard whatsoever to Group A. Indeed, because of the vast power differential, it would be “very easy” for Group B to achieve this world takeover. And such an outcome would indeed be very bad according to Group A’s values.
Of course, this naive analysis is flawed, because the real world is multipolar in an important respect: usually, Group B will let Group A (the individual) have some autonomy, and let them receive a tiny fraction of the world’s resources, rather than murdering Group A and taking all their stuff. They will do this because of laws, moral norms, and respect for one’s fellow human. This multipolarity therefore sidesteps all the issues with value fragility, and allows Group A to achieve a pretty good outcome according to their values.
This is also my primary hope with misaligned AI. Even if misaligned AIs are collectively millions or billions of times more powerful than humans (or aligned AIs), I would hope they would still allow the humans or aligned AIs to have some autonomy, leave us alone, and let us receive a sufficient fraction of resources that we can enjoy an OK outcome, according to our values.

Matthew_Barnett 3 Aug 2024 1:16 UTC
16 points
2 ∶ 3
on: AI Rights for Human Safety
I would go even further than the position argued in this paper. This paper focuses on whether we should give agentic AIs certain legal rights (right to make contracts, hold property, and bring tort claims), but I also think as an empirical matter, we probably will do so. I have two main justifications for my position here:
1. The long-term historical trend has been for legal systems to become more inclusive, i.e., formally incorporating more people into the process, and granting them specific legal rights and freedoms. Ancient legal systems—such as the one described by the Code of Hammurabi—generally gave few legal rights to foreigners, women, lower classes, and children, in contrast to modern legal systems that recognize a much larger set of freedoms and protections for each of those groups. A plausible extrapolation of this trend would include agentic AIs into the legal process.
2. The incentives for humans to grant AIs rights will probably be enormous, largely for the reasons stated in the paper. Without any legal rights, misaligned AIs have a stronger incentive to accomplish their goals via extra-legal actions, such as plotting a violent takeover. By contrast, if AIs are incorporated into the legal system and benefit from the legal titles they acquire within the system, then they will have a strong interest in maintaining the integrity, predictability, and stability of the legal system. If humans can recognize these benefits, it seems likely they will grant AIs legal rights.
Beyond the basic question of whether AIs should or will receive basic legal rights in the future, there are important remaining questions about how post-AGI law should be structured. For example:
1. How should liability work in a world where agents can be created much more cheaply than children can be created today? If A creates B, and B commits a crime, should both A and B be held accountable?
2. What laws should govern who is allowed to create new AGIs (for example, by fine-tuning a base model), and what rules should govern what types of entities people can create?
3. How should criminal penalties be enforced in a world with AGI? Prison sentences might not be the best solution.
I believe these questions, among others, deserve more attention among those interested in AGI governance.

Matthew_Barnett 3 Aug 2024 0:33 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: The EA case for Trump 2024
OTOH I’m not sure medical innovation on the margin is net positive (cf covid).
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Matthew_Barnett 26 Jul 2024 22:44 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: A framework for thinking about AI power-seeking
I think I basically agree with you, and I am definitely not saying we should just shrug. We should instead try to shape the future positively, as best we can. However, I still feel like I’m not quite getting my point across. Here’s one more attempt to explain what I mean.
Imagine if we achieved a technology that enabled us to build physical robots that were functionally identical to humans in every relevant sense, including their observable behavior, and their ability to experience happiness and pain in exactly the same way that ordinary humans do. However, there is just one difference between these humanoid robots and biological humans: they are made of silicon rather than carbon, and they look robotic, rather than biological.
In this scenario, it would certainly feel strange to me if someone were to suggest that we should be worried about a peaceful robot takeover, in which the humanoid robots collectively accumulate the vast majority of wealth in the world via lawful means.
By assumption, these humanoid robots are literally functionally identical to ordinary humans. As a result, I think we should have no intrinsic reason to disprefer them receiving a dominant share of the world’s wealth, versus some other subset of human-like beings. This remains true even if the humanoid robots are literally “not human”, and thus their peaceful takeover is equivalent to “human disempowerment” in a technical sense.
There ultimate reason why I think one should not worry about a peaceful robot takeover in this specific scenario is because I think these humanoid robots have essentially the same moral worth and right to choose as ordinary humans, and therefore we should respect their agency and autonomy just as much as we already do for ordinary humans. Since we normally let humans accumulate wealth and become powerful via lawful means, I think we should allow these humanoid robots to do the same. I hope you would agree with me here.
Now, generalizing slightly, I claim that to be rationally worried about a peaceful robot takeover in general, you should usually be able to identify a relevant moral difference between the scenario I have just outlined and the scenario that you’re worried about. Here are some candidate moral differences that I personally don’t find very compelling:
- In the humanoid robot scenario, there’s no possible way the humanoid robots would ever end up killing the biological humans, since they are functionally identical to each other. In other words, biological humans aren’t at risk of losing their rights and dying.
  - My response: this doesn’t seem true. Humans have committed genocide against other subsets of humanity based on arbitrary characteristics before. Therefore, I don’t think we can rule out that the humanoid robots would commit genocide against the biological humans either, although I agree it seems very unlikely.
- In the humanoid robot scenario, the humanoid robots are guaranteed to have the same values as the biological humans, since they are functionally identical to biological humans.
  - My response: this also doesn’t seem guaranteed. Humans frequently have large disagreements in values with other subsets of humanity. For example, China as a group has different values than the United States as a group. This difference in values is even larger if you consider indexical preferences among the members of the group, which generally overlap very little.

Matthew_Barnett 26 Jul 2024 0:28 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: A framework for thinking about AI power-seeking
Say you’re worried about any take-over-the-world actions, violent or not—in which case this argument about the advantages of non-violent takeover is of scant comfort;
This is reasonable under the premise that you’re worried about any AI takeovers, no matter whether they’re violent or peaceful. But speaking personally, peaceful takeover scenarios where AIs just accumulate power—not by cheating us or by killing us via nanobots—but instead by lawfully beating humans fair and square and accumulating almost all the wealth over time, just seem much better than violent takeovers, and not very bad by themselves.
I admit the moral intuition here is not necessarily obvious. I concede that there are plausible scenarios in which AIs are completely peaceful and act within reasonable legal constraints, and yet the future ends up ~worthless. Perhaps the most obvious scenario is the “Disneyland without children” scenario where the AIs go on to create an intergalactic civilization, but in which no one (except perhaps the irrelevant humans still on Earth) is sentient.
But when I try to visualize the most likely futures, I don’t tend to visualize a sea of unsentient optimizers tiling the galaxies. Instead, I tend to imagine a transition from sentient biological life to sentient artificial life, which continues to be every bit as cognitively rich, vibrant, and sophisticated as our current world—indeed, it could be even moreso, given what becomes possible at a higher technological and population level.
Worrying about non-violent takeover scenarios often seems to me to arise simply from discrimination against non-biological forms of life, or perhaps a more general fear of rapid technological change, rather than naturally falling out as a consequence of more robust moral intuitions.
Let me put it another way.
It is often conceded that it was good for humans to take over the world. Speaking broadly, we think this was good because we identify with humans and their aims. We belong to the “human” category of course; but more importantly, we think of ourselves as being part of what might be called the “human tribe”, and therefore we sympathize with the pursuits and aims of the human species as a whole. But equally, we could identify as part of the “sapient tribe”, which would include non-biological life as well as humans, and thus we could sympathize with the pursuits of AIs, whatever those may be. Under this framing, what reason is there to care much about a non-violent, peaceful AI takeover?

Matthew_Barnett 25 Jul 2024 23:57 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Erich_Grunewald 🔸’s comment on: A framework for thinking about AI power-seeking
I want to distinguish between two potential claims:
1. When two distinct populations live alongside each other, sometimes the less intelligent population dies out as a result of competition and violence with the more intelligent population.
2. When two distinct populations live alongside each other, by default, the more intelligent population generally develops convergent instrumental goals that lead to the extinction of the other population, unless the more intelligent population is value-aligned with the other population.
I think claim (1) is clearly true and is supported by your observation that Neanderthals’ went extinct, but I intended to argue against claim (2) instead. (Although, separately, I think the evidence that Neanderthals’ were less intelligent than homo sapiens is rather weak.)
Despite my comment above, I do not actually have much sympathy towards the claim that humans can’t possibly go extinct, or that our species is definitely going to survive over the very long run in a relatively unmodified form, for the next billion years. (Indeed, perhaps like the Neanderthals, our best hope to survive in the long-run may come from merging with the AIs.)
It’s possible you think claim (1) is sufficient in some sense to establish some important argument. For example, perhaps all you’re intending to argue here is that AI is risky, which to be clear, I agree with.
On the other hand, I think that claim (2) accurately describes a popular view among EAs, albeit with some dispute over what counts as a “population” for the purpose of this argument, and what counts as “value-aligned”. While important, claim (1) is simply much weaker than claim (2), and consequently implies fewer concrete policy prescriptions.
I think it is important to critically examine (2) even if we both concede that (1) is true.

Matthew_Barnett 25 Jul 2024 18:14 UTC
6 points
2 ∶ 0
on: A framework for thinking about AI power-seeking
I’m not sure I fully understand this framework, and thus I could easily have missed something here, especially in the section about “Takeover-favoring incentives”. However, based on my limited understanding, this framework appears to miss the central argument for why I am personally not as worried about AI takeover risk as most EAs seem to be.
Here’s a concise summary of my own argument for being less worried about takeover risk:
1. There is a cost to violently taking over the world, in the sense of acquiring power unlawfully or destructively with the aim of controlling everything in the whole world, relative to the alternative of simply gaining power lawfully and peacefully, even for agents that don’t share ‘our’ values.
  1. For example, as a simple alternative to taking over the world, an AI could advocate for the right to own their own labor and then try to accumulate wealth and power lawfully by selling their services to others, which would earn them the ability to purchase a gargantuan number of paperclips without much restraint.
2. The expected cost of violent takeover is not obviously smaller than the benefits of violent takeover, given the existence of lawful alternatives to violent takeover. This is for two main reasons:
  1. In order to wage a war to take over the world, you generally need to pay costs fighting the war, and there is a strong motive for everyone else to fight back against you if you try, including other AIs who do not want you to take over the world (and this includes any AIs whose goals would be hindered by a violent takeover, not just those who are “aligned with humans”). Empirically, war is very costly and wasteful, and less efficient than compromise, trade, and diplomacy.
  2. Violently taking over the war is very risky, since the attempt could fail, and you could be totally shut down and penalized heavily if you lose. There are many ways that violent takeover plans could fail: your takeover plans could be exposed too early, you could also be caught trying to coordinate the plan with other AIs and other humans, and you could also just lose the war. Ordinary compromise, trade, and diplomacy generally seem like better strategies for agents that have at least some degree of risk-aversion.
3. There isn’t likely to be “one AI” that controls everything, nor will there likely be a strong motive for all the silicon-based minds to coordinate as a unified coalition against the biological-based minds, in the sense of acting as a single agentic AI against the biological people. Thus, future wars of world conquest (if they happen at all) will likely be along different lines than AI vs. human.
  1. For example, you could imagine a coalition of AIs and humans fighting a war against a separate coalition of AIs and humans, with the aim of establishing control over the world. In this war, the “line” here is not drawn cleanly between humans and AIs, but is instead drawn across a different line. As a result, it’s difficult to call this an “AI takeover” scenario, rather than merely a really bad war.
4. Nothing about this argument is intended to argue that AIs will be weaker than humans in aggregate, or individually. I am not claiming that AIs will be bad at coordinating or will be less intelligent than humans. I am also not saying that AIs won’t be agentic or that they won’t have goals or won’t be consequentialists, or that they’ll have the same values as humans. I’m also not talking about purely ethical constraints: I am referring to practical constraints and costs on the AI’s behavior. The argument is purely about the incentives of violently taking over the world vs. the incentives to peacefully cooperate within a lawful regime, between both humans and other AIs.
5. A big counterargument to my argument seems well-summarized by this hypothetical statement (which is not an actual quote, to be clear): “if you live in a world filled with powerful agents that don’t fully share your values, those agents will have a convergent instrumental incentive to violently take over the world from you”. However, this argument proves too much.
  
  We already live in a world where, if this statement was true, we would have observed way more violent takeover attempts than what we’ve actually observed historically.
  For example, I personally don’t fully share values with almost all other humans on Earth (both because of my indexical preferences, and my divergent moral views) and yet the rest of the world has not yet violently disempowered me in any way that I can recognize.
What links here?
- Value fragility and AI takeover by Joe Carlsmith (LessWrong; 5 Aug 2024 21:28 UTC; 76 points)

Matthew_Barnett 18 Jul 2024 17:05 UTC
2 points
2 ∶ 1
on: Pausing AI is Progress
what we want from progress in our airplanes is, first and foremost, safety.
I dispute that this is what I want from airplanes. First and foremost, what I want from an airplane is for it to take me from point A to point B at a high speed. Other factors are important too, including safety, comfort, and reliability. But, there are non-trivial tradeoffs between these other factors: for example, if we could make planes 20% safer but at the cost that flights took twice as long, I would not personally want to take this trade.
You might think this is a trivial objection to your analogy, but I don’t think it is. In general, humans have a variety of values, and are not single-mindedly focused on safety at the cost of everything else. We put value on safety, but we also put value on capabilities, and urgency, along with numerous other variables. As another analogy, if we were to have delayed the adoption of the covid vaccine by a decade to perform more safety testing, that cost would have been substantial, even if it were done in the name of safety.
In my view, the main reason not to delay AI comes from a similar line of reasoning. By delaying AI, we are delaying all the technological progress and economic value that could be hastened by AI, and this cost is not small. If you think that accelerated technological progress could save your life, cure aging, and eliminate global poverty, then from the perspective of existing humans, delaying AI can start to sound like it mainly prolongs the ongoing catastrophes in the world, rather than preventing new ones.
It might be valuable to delay AI even at the price of letting billions of humans to die of aging, prolonging the misery of poverty, and so on. Whether it’s worth delaying depends, of course, on what we are getting in exchange for the delay. However, unless you think this price is negligible, or you’re simply very skeptical that accelerated technological progress will have these effects, then this is not an easy dilemma.

Matthew_Barnett

Why I think sufficiently advanced AIs will likely be sentient by default

Why I’m skeptical of a general AI moratorium