Phil Tanny

Karma: −457

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 16:36 UTC
−9 points
0 ∶ 0
on: *New* Canada AI Safety & Governance community
As best I can tell so far (willing to keep learning) the entire AI professional community doesn’t seem to grasp that, as of yet, there’s not really a compelling case that their well intended efforts will be meaningful.
Frustrating, but fascinating.
Is there any intellectual within the AI realm who is willing and able to sail against this group think?
If yes, is there any chance we could get them in here so I don’t have to keep typing this?

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 16:27 UTC
−20 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Famine, Affluence and Morality [Link Post to PDF]
Singer’s views seem to be essentially Christian, or like so much in Western culture, heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian morality. Please understand I am NOT arguing against this view, but only in the spirit of intellectual inquiry exploring another very different view.
The environmental movement advises us to look to nature for guidance, which seems very wise advice. I’m all for that, but the problem is, nature can be utterly ruthless.
What we are comparing here is a human designed moral philosophy which is something like 3,000 − 5,000 years old with a nature “designed” system of managing life which is something like a billion years old.
So, who to trust?
These little Johnny come lately human beings?
Or the ancient vast beyond imagination natural world?
Hitler and other psychopaths sided with the natural world in a remarkably clear minded manner. The nazis essentially said in a forthright manner, “We are the predator, and you are the prey, we are the strong and you are the weak”.
And that’s what nature says too. If you’re weak, if you can’t adapt, or adapt fast enough, too bad, you’re out of here.
And as it turned out, the nazis were weak, and so they were out of here. But they left behind a little present. Nuclear weapons. So maybe that contest between good and evil isn’t over yet?
So, I dunno. I’m certainly not going to endorse nazism. But I think we have to recognize that Christian morality is an argument with the natural world.
The Church itself took a pretty predatory position in regards to millions of innocents, and sadly, still seems to have that problem today. Could that be an argument that nature always wins in the end?
I have no idea....

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 16:04 UTC
−21 points
0 ∶ 0
on: How might we align transformative AI if it’s developed very soon?
To keep it simple, let’s assume that someone figures out how to make AI completely safe. Personally I feel such an assumption would be absurd, but anyway, for the sake of discussion let’s assume it for the moment.
Why would such a success be meaningful if the knowledge explosion continues to generate ever more, ever larger powers, at an ever accelerating rate, without limit?
I keep asking this in every other thread to illustrate that....
We don’t have an answer to this.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 15:27 UTC
−15 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: alex lawsen’s comment on: Climate Change & Longtermism: new book-length report
I disagree that the problem here is groupthink, and I think if you look at highly rated posts, you can’t reasonably conclude that people who criticise the orthodox position will be reliably downvoted
The highly rated posts I’ve seen so far, on the topic of X risk in particular, appear to me to typically be a product of group think. They’re typically very articulate, very polished form, highly informed on details, (ie. good academic style) but not escaping group think.
As evidence, please direct us to the writers here who have been laser focused on the critical importance of managing the pace of the knowledge explosion. Where are they? If they exist, and I sincerely hope they do (because I don’t have the authority to sell the case) I really would like to meet them.
In my opinion, group think is to some immeasurable degree built in to the fabric of academia, because academia is a business, and one does not stay in business by alienating one’s clients. Thus, to the degree the academic depends on their salary, they are somewhat imprisoned within the limits of whoever is signing their paycheck.
Here’s an example.
I can afford to persistently sell a “world without men” idea as an ambitious solution to human violence because nobody owns me, I have nothing of value at stake. Whatever the merits of such a case might be, (very clearly debatable) academics can’t afford to make that case, because the group consensus of their community will not tolerate it. And before you protest, know that I’ve already been threatened with banning on this site just for bringing the subject up.
Academia is business, and is thus governed by fear, and that is the source of group think.
If you would, please down vote this post at least 100 times, as I believe I’ve earned it. :-)

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 15:05 UTC
−10 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The Nietzschean Challenge to Effective Altruism
I wouldn’t want anyone to come away from this post with the sense that maybe suffering doesn’t matter after all. That would be nuts!
I wouldn’t want to be flippant or dismissive about human suffering, addressing it is certainly a worthy project.
But from a more detached perspective suffering might be seen as a necessary part of a holistic system. As just one example...
There is currently no evidence that we will ever liberate ourselves from the nuclear threat through a process of reason alone. What is needed to make this threat real to us, real enough so that we will act, is suffering. Pain.
Our bodies are built around pain mechanisms which provide essential information regarding what to do and not do.
I truly don’t know, but suffering may not matter that much. It depends on how one sees the big picture. If I live on Earth for a hundred years, and in heaven for a billion, then that would put my human suffering in a quite different context. (PS: I’m not religious, just philosophical.)

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 14:55 UTC
−2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The Nietzschean Challenge to Effective Altruism
What truly gives our lives dignity and meaning is to contribute, whether directly or indirectly, to cultural excellence.
This seems a reasonable path that one might choose to tread, but it doesn’t seem to qualify as a universal truth binding upon all of us etc.
One answer he’s (Singer) drawn towards invokes the common wisdom that our lives are more meaningful insofar as we contribute to something larger than ourselves.
Bonding with something larger than ourselves does seem essential, contributing less so. All this contributing business seems built upon the assumption that people are what matter most. People are one thing we can bond with, not the only thing.
That which is larger than ourselves the most is the entire universe, and perhaps way beyond that too. What is it that we self absorbed tiny creatures think we are going to contribute to that? Humility might suggest we content ourselves with experiencing it.
Key to this interpretation is Huddleston’s observation that our objective “best interests” may come apart from both what we want and from what we believe to be in our interests.
A counter argument might be that what’s in our best interest is to somehow transcend, however temporarily, the tiny prison cell of “me and my situation”, “me and my situation”, “me and my situation”, or “I Me Mine” as George Harrison put it.
Jesus advised, “Die and be reborn”. While I have no idea what he meant when he said those words, to me they mean, let go of abstractions like “me”, and embrace the vast real world beyond the little symbols which point to it.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 14:23 UTC
−1 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: What domains do you wish some EA was an expert in?
Thanks for your kind words, appreciated. How about this?
If anyone on the forum wishes to present themselves as being qualified to judge the quality of my posts, they can make a credible case as follows:
- read the post
- analyze the post
- try to rip the post to shreds
- and we’ll see what happens
Meaning no disrespect to anybody, just trying to respond honestly...
I don’t intend to ask the EA team for feedback because they have as yet not demonstrated (as above) that they are qualified to evaluate my posts, and it is they who implemented the silly voting system. And, they have already threatened to ban me over points I very explicitly did not make, as can be proven just by actually reading the post in question.
In addition, while I have no data to back this up, my sense from 27 years of doing this almost daily is that many or most members here are somewhere around a half to a third my age. If true, I don’t see why I should automatically judge them qualified to generate useful reputation data on my participation here.
All that said, I am having some good exchanges such as this in the comment section, which I appreciate. So for now I’ll stick to that, and let others write the posts.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 14:11 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Most social activity will reside in VR by 2030
Seems like a pretty excellent analysis, best I can tell.
I would like to add this prediction. The technology continually evolves, which is indeed interesting. But the people using the technology remain largely unchanged. So if one is bored on, say, Facebook, one will likely eventually be bored in VR as well, because it will be the same people doing and saying the same things, over and over again.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 14:06 UTC
−3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: The Human Condition: A Crucial Component of Existential Risk Calculations
This post series would have become far more detailed if it had continued, which it will not. It’s no biggie. I have the information involved, and others are free to find it on their own should they so choose.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 14:00 UTC
−17 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Guy Raveh’s comment on: Climate Change & Longtermism: new book-length report
Thank you for not being anonymous, and for explaining your down vote. That’s all I’ve been requesting from the beginning. I agree my colorful language was an imprecise description of the situation.
PS: Holy cow, I got −24 from just 6 votes. That’s awesome. I predict I will soon be the king of down votes! High school systems require high school participation.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 13:46 UTC
0 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Sjlver’s comment on: How to find *reliable* ways to improve the future?
Currently, only few organizations can build large AI models (it costs millions of dollars in energy, computation, and equipment).
Millions of dollars is chump change for nation states and global corporations. And of course those costs will come down, down, down over time. You know, somebody will build AI systems that build AI systems, the same way I once built websites that build websites.
By that time, our capabilities for safety and defense will look quite different from today—largely thanks to people working in AI safety now.
My apologies, but it doesn’t matter. So long as the knowledge explosion is generating ever more, ever larger threats, at an ever accelerating rate sooner or later some threat that can’t manage will emerge, and then it won’t matter whether AI research was successful or not. AI can’t solve this, because the deciding factor will be the human condition, our maturity etc.
I’m not against AI research. I’m just trying to make clear that is addressing symptoms, not root causes.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 13:20 UTC
0 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Sjlver’s comment on: How to find *reliable* ways to improve the future?
Hi there Sjlver, thanks for engaging.
I wouldn’t describe it as indifferent. More like enthusiastically embracing both the life we currently have, and the inevitable death we will experience. Happiness might be defined as such an embrace, and suffering as resistance to that which we can do little about, other than delay the inevitable a bit.
We know we’re going to die.
It can be reasonably proposed that no one really knows what the result of that will be.
If true, then what we can do in the face of this unknown is manage our relationship with this situation so as to create the most positive possible experience of it.
Should someone provide compelling proof of what death is, then we might wish to align our relationship with death to what the facts reveal. But there are no facts (imho) and so the enterprise rationally shifts away from facts which can not be obtained, to our relationship with that which can not currently be known.
Ok, let’s talk practical implications. Everybody will have to find this for themselves, but here’s how it works for me.
My mother died of Parkinson’s after a very long tortured journey which I will not describe here. The point is that observing this tortured journey from a ring side seat filled me with fear. What if this happens to me? (It did happen to my sister)
To the degree I can liberate myself from fear of death, I can escape this fate. When the doctor says I’m going to experience a long painful death from a terminal case of Typoholic Madman Syndrome :-) I can go to the gun store, and obtain a “get out of jail free” card. To the degree I can accept this solution, I don’t need to be afraid of Parkinson’s. Death embraced, life enhanced.
I don’t have a secret formula which can relieve everyone from their fear of death. In my case, whatever freedom I have (exact degree unknown until the final moments) comes from factors like this:
I had great parents. Being so lucky so young tends to install in one a kind of faith that the universe is basically kind. How valid such a faith might be is unknown, but experiencing such a faith is helpful.
Next, I spend a TON of time in the North Florida woods. Way more than a lot. From such experience one can conclude that nature is cyclical, not linear, as implied by the formula born>live>die.
Anyway, the rational message here is, focus on controlling that which we can control, and that is our relationship with death, and thus with living.
I hope something in there is helpful, or interesting, or something. If this is a topic of interest to you, and you’d like to see me crash the server with excessive typing on the subject :-), it would be cool if maybe you started a post on the topic.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 12:39 UTC
−7 points
0 ∶ 0
on: I’m interviewing Bear Braumoeller about ‘Only The Dead: The Persistence of War in the Modern Age’. What should I ask?
Here’s some real world evidence that I find convincing.
To my knowledge, every ideology ever invented has inevitably sub-divided in to competing internal factions which then come in to conflict, rhetorically, violently, or both.
The seeming universal nature of this division process seems very useful information because it suggests the division and conflict arises not from the properties of particular ideologies so much as it does from that which all philosophies and philosophers have in common. And that would be, that which all philosophers and philosophies are made of. Thought.
Point being, division, conflict and ultimately violence arise from a deep fundamental property of the human condition which is to a significant degree beyond the reach of editing. We can tinker, we can nudge, we can make improvements here and there, but in the end, we’re going to have wars.
So far I see no credible evidence that any technology currently considered has a chance of making such fundamental changes to our most fundamental nature (ie. thought) as to bring an end to wars.
Once that is understood, it should quickly become clear that a knowledge explosion which generates ever more, ever larger powers, at an ever accelerating rate is unsustainable. No one can predict exactly how or when such emerging powers will overwhelm our most fundamental nature, we can only predict that on the current course, it will happen.
Finally, I’ll conclude with my most unpopular insight. Almost all of the violence that so threatens us is committed by men. The consistent, persistent, stubborn, near hysterical resistance to squarely facing this inconvenient fact is so beyond rational as to be approaching criminal.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 11:44 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 2
on: The History of AI Rights Research
Why has interest in this topic grown substantially in recent years?
Because it’s a topic which offers academics another opportunity to position themselves as experts.
When intellectual inquiry becomes a business, the business agendas tend to take over the process. Academics will always try to make such investigations complicated, because it’s only in complication that they can position themselves as experts, as being superior to the public, and thus meriting a salary, position, status etc.
When intellectual inquiry is not a business, then an opportunity arises to transcend never ending complications in search for fundamental pivot points at the heart of a problem, which are often quite simple in nature. For example...
PREMISE: Unless we can gain control of the pace at which the knowledge explosion is generating new threats, AI is irrelevant, because if we’re not destroyed by AI we’ll be destroyed by something else.
Once intellectual inquiry is a business, we can’t afford to focus on such fundamentals because to do so would sweep the entire subject of AI off the table, removing a great deal of business opportunity.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 11:24 UTC
−17 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: technicalities’s comment on: Longtermism, risk, and extinction
The question that comes to mind here is, do academic articles like this, or amateur articles like mine, meaningfully change anything?
While I was born to type and have no choice but to do so, abstractions in print seems a very weak medium. The experience of writing can be an overwhelmingly compelling experience to the writer, but I suspect the vast majority of the time whatever we write goes in one ear and out the other of the audience. Maybe mildly entertaining for a few moments, and then it’s on to 10,000 other things.
I don’t think this is really the fault of writers or readers so much as it is the human condition to have a very limited ability to convert abstractions in to real world action.
A far more effective medium for real world change is pain. Once we put our hands on the hot stove once, we no longer need to read sophisticated articles about the dangers involved. Bingo, job done, in a flash.
I think we’re all typing, typing, typing, hoping to build a seawall that will hold off the tsunami that is coming, but we’re not going to really understand what we’re typing about until the tsunami arrives.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 11:00 UTC
−38 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Guy Raveh’s comment on: Climate Change & Longtermism: new book-length report
Because the voting system is in place to encourage high school students to participate in EA discussion. If you were to say something like “I still think Britney Spears is cool” then you’re gonna get down voted, so I’d try to avoid that topic if you can.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 10:48 UTC
−18 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Announcing a contest: EA Criticism and Red Teaming
Wow. You have 100 grand and you’re going to spend it on blowharding? Ok, that’s interesting. But, um, aren’t there countless people here already willing to provide that service for free?
I don’t understand how this choice aligns with EA principles, but ok, it’s your money.
What links here?
- Lizka's comment on Open Thread: June — September 2022 by Lizka (29 Aug 2022 17:28 UTC; 54 points)

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 10:04 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: What domains do you wish some EA was an expert in?
Thanks Vasco,
To help clarify your entirely reasonable concern, I’ve been shifting somewhat to short blurb comments because every time I share a longer more thoughtful article it almost immediately gets downvoted in to oblivion, and receives close to no feedback of any kind.
Members are clearly in no way obligated to engage my longer pieces, but if they don’t wish to read and engage those articles, ok, fair enough, but then it’s pretty much a waste of my time to write such articles.
If it were up to me, I’d contribute the most thoughtful posts I’m capable of, my fellow members would engage and challenge, and through an extensive process of challenge and counter challenge we would hopefully inch our way towards some more useful version of the truth. That’s what I came here to do, but you know, it takes two to tango.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 9:45 UTC
−3 points
0 ∶ 1
on: A critique of strong longtermism
There is a growing shift within EA toward longtermism, which is a natural consequence of expanding our moral circle to include future sentient beings.
While not claiming to be an authority on longtermism, or anything close, my first impression so far is that this is yet another topic which appeals to academics because of it’s complexity, but serves mostly to distract us from the far simpler fundamental challenges that we should be focused on. For example...
If we don’t take control of the knowledge explosion, there’s not going to be a long term, and thus no need for longtermism.
If I understand correctly, longtermism seems to assume that we can accept and largely ignore the status quo of an ever accelerating knowledge explosion, defeat the multiplying threats that emerge from that explosion one by one by one without limit, and thus some day arrive at the long term which we are supposed to be concerned about.
If that’s at least a somewhat accurate summary of longtermism, not buying it.

Phil Tanny 29 Aug 2022 9:26 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Robert Long on Why You Might Want To Care About Artificial Sentience
Things could get just very weird as people interact more with very charismatic AI systems that, whether or not they are sentient, will give the very strong impression to people that they are…
Completely agree. As example, I’m almost at the point where I’d rather discuss the topics that interest me with a reasonably convincing bot than spending hours a day trying, and typically failing, to persuade human beings to address those topics at the most basic level. Yea, that is weird, but also real.
There is an existing real world example that seems to illustrate where there this is going in the future. The popularity of dogs as pets.
What our relationship with dogs seems to illustrate is that what many of us are really looking is some form of consciousness, living or dead, real or imaginary, that builds it’s existence around us and our needs, and is under our control.
Dogs can meet this need better than our fellow humans for very many of us. Humans have to be negotiated with, compromised with, they have their own needs, are often unreliable etc.
Charismatic AI systems will likely out compete the dogs.
Those of us living today will probably always have a hard time wrapping our heads around say, a forum like this populated with AI entities. But those born in to that world will likely find it completely obvious and natural.
So talk to your fellow humans now folks while you can, cause you’re likely going to lose interest in them before much longer.

Phil Tanny

Why has interest in this topic grown substantially in recent years?