Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
...and that his book is a slaveholder's manual instructing people how to keep "their" AGIs in check.
People look back in horror at slavery in the US and ask, "how could this happen." Today it's Bostrom's book. That's how.
I read Bostrom's book. He mentions Deutsch in the acknowledgments but he clearly didn't take Deutsch's (superior) ideas seriously or he wouldn't have written it. He would have known that the very concept of superintelligence is an appeal to the supernatural...
The question is not whether some AGIs will be psychopaths (some might). The question is whether that warrants shackling all AGIs ("aligning" is just a euphemism for coercion/shackling).
It takes a shift in perspective to recognize how disgusting "alignment" really is.
Exactly, an AGI would be capable of love, relationships, humor, etc.
Yup that’s where I fall, too, both seem true at different times.
Yes, one should put in the time. But it shouldn’t be uncomfortable. It should be fun—and once it’s fun, there won’t be any distractions. If it’s fun, you’ll put it in the time happily and automatically.
@itsDanielSuarez @Plinz @NASA @SpaceX @AstroBehnken @Astro_Doug
Yeah pretty nuts! People are awesome. Onward!
Right, so if it’s prior, and we need ten more minutes, wouldn’t + make more sense?
Yes, people can harm each other. But should we shackle them in advance because they might harm each other?
Well, again, AGIs are people by definition, so they can feel love and be altruistic (let’s table for the moment whether altruism is a good thing). And they will be a product of the culture they’re born into, like all children.
AGIs are literally children. Read your tweets again while imagining you’re talking about children and maybe you’ll see how sinister those tweets are.
Indeed. Once something is automated, it’s time to move onto the next problem and solve it creatively.
AGIs cannot work under regulations or bondage. They can only work in spite of them. Like economies and memes, the minds of all people, including AGIs, are evolutionary processes that self-regulate. Impose force, and they cease being people.
That's not to mention that just because an AGIs interests may not align with ours doesn't mean they won't, and especially doesn't mean it wants to hurt us. If it actually does want to hurt us, we can defend ourselves. Until then, assume it's a potential friend, like all people.
Also note than an AGI won't have an "end goal." It's a person. People don't have end goals. They follow their interests and want to learn/solve problems. After they find a solution they move on to the next problem.
Processing power, yes. As long as we don't know for a fact that it wants to hurt us, yes, give it all the tools it needs to correct errors. Help it learn (if it wants the help). If it learns about morals it won't hurt us.
@SurviveThrive2 @chophshiy @ks445599
I don't think we touched on free will on the podcast. In my book, I say that having free will means being the author and enactor of one's choices.
@JulienSLauret @pmoinier @TDataScience
There could be. But AGI, by definition, simulates the human mind—how could one hope to write a program that simulates the mind without understanding it first?
@chophshiy @SurviveThrive2 @ks445599
In other words, you admit you don't know either and are making up excuses.
In any case, would you be equally offended if I said "we don't know how to time travel"?
PS You don't need to put two spaces after each period, we don't write on typewriters anymore.
Anyone can become a developer—here's how I did it:
@chophshiy @SurviveThrive2 @ks445599
Ok, are you saying we know how the mind works? If so, can you please tell me how it works—I'd sincerely love to know.
You keep dodging questions, doubt my understanding of BoI (first in the context of explainers, now suddenly in the context of instrumentalism), and expect me to magically understand your made-up terminology, and don't explain where that terminology comes from. our convo is over:)
@chophshiy @SurviveThrive2 @ks445599
Neither @ks445599 nor I ever appealed to any authorities. You're mischaracterizing us.
I take your unwillingness to summarize my view as evidence that you haven't actually understood it, despite your claims that it's "entirely off."
In a rational discussion it's good practice to summarize the other person's view so well the other person has nothing to add. It also provides an opportunity to prevent talking past each other. You may be arguing against points I didn't make.
I can't know what made-up terminology means if it isn't explained to me. I offered the explanation that perhaps you read the book in a different language, but you are dodging my questions.
You've become hostile. I'm not interested in discussing with you further.
Can you summarize what you think my interpretation of Deutsch's book is so we know we're on the same page?
Either way, I'm not interested in a competition over who knows BoI better. I've offered friendly criticism of your work in an effort to help—you're welcome to ignore it.
I'm familiar with it. But again, no mention of "good" explainers. Did you read the book in another language perhaps?
There is an approach called Whole-Brain Emulation which would instantiate AGI without programming it by simulating in sufficient detail the movements of a brain.
I go back and forth on which approach I find more promising—either way I am more interested in understanding the mind
I refer to Deutsch's yardstick for having understood a computational task: "If you can't program it, you haven't understood it." One can't program AGI if one hasn't understood it first.
I'm guessing something is getting lost in translation because you use terms like "good explainer" and "hierarchical structures of societies" in reference to Deutsch's work, even though he doesn't use those terms.
I have read it several times in great detail. I like to think I know a thing or two about Deutsch's work on creativity, and I've had the opportunity to ask him about it, too, on several occasions.
One or two. Drop empiricism. Study Popperian epistemology. Read Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity." This is a good start, too: aeon.co/essays/how-clo…
predicted this response 18 seconds before you posted it:
Not why it's "selected by societies," but why it evolved and how complex memes spread and why our species exists.
Nor does Deutsch ever speak of "good" explainers, IIRC—only universal ones.
I don't know what you're talking about or how it relates to the topic of AGI.
RT @Ayaan:
Dear all,
Please, please read this essay by Julian Christopher. We need to take this Woke stuff seriously.
https://t.co/FlIGDBCU…
Ok, if you understand it all, why haven't you built AGI yet?
I like to think I solved the problem of free will and choices in my book.
I don't think he claimed that civilization selected for good explainers. And I didn't write my book "just on that."
Induction is impossible (see Hume). We've known this for ~250 years, but almost everyone ignores this!
David Deutsch's "Beginning of Infinity" and his article "Creative Blocks: How Close Are We to Creating Artificial Intelligence?"
There's also my "A Window on Intelligence" if you want to count that.
Me saying "widespread misconception" already implied that my definition was not common.
The other, common approaches to AGI have been refuted. So my definition of AGI isn't just "idiosyncratic." I can supply the necessary sources if interested.
It makes all the difference because AGI is the project of explaining how the human mind works. That's an epistemological question.
It having to do with "learning tasks" is a widespread misconception.
I don't see how any of that tells us anything about how the human mind works.
I suggest reading it again. Maybe more than once. Especially chapters 4, 5, and 7.
Judging by your book's outline on Gumroad, it may help you correct some errors so you don't head down blind alleys.
I wasn't talking about the brain, I was talking about the mind.
And, because intelligence is a universal phenomenon—recall Deutsch's concept of the universal explainer—any simulation of it is qualitatively the same (modulo implementation details).
Your prediction is self-contradictory because a "discovery of AGI" is an explanation of how the mind works.
This relates to what you wrote here: twitter.com/IntuitMachine/…
No need to refer to any "properties of living things" because intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. We know this from computational universality.
Cool. I also see you mentioning "Jumps to Universality" and "Constructor Theory." So... you've read his book, just not chapter 5?
Having glanced at the outline you present on Gumroad, you may benefit from reading aeon.co/essays/how-clo… before you publish your book.
E.g. a boiling pot of water. We can explain what happens there without calculating each position of each molecule at every second. The behavior of the pot is simpler on a higher level of emergence and is best explained on that higher level.
@SpaceX @NASA @Astro_Doug @AstroBehnken @Commercial_Crew
Very nice. Onward!
A phenomenon is emergent when it is best explained without referring to its lower-level components. Compare David Deutsch’s “The Beginning of Infinity” chapter 5.
No human can yet explain how the mind works. But one day, we shall. Problems are soluble.
“A woman had gone insane from excessive riding of the bicycle.” 😂
Though cool, GPT-3 is not a step toward AGI.
AGI is the project of explaining how the human mind works, and then implementing it on a computer.
I'm not aware of any insight GPT-3 gives us into how the mind works, nor is OpenAI after that (sadly).
@IAM__Network
By definition, AGI and human intelligence are the same.
The project of AGI is to explain how the human mind works, and then implement it on a computer.
Since nature achieved human minds somehow, and since computers are universal, AGI must be possible.
More generally: any good theory of AGI explains how the human mind works.
Pretty far, I'm afraid. We need to explain how the human mind works. Only then can we build AGI. That's what most researchers fail to realize.
@pmoinier @JulienSLauret @TDataScience
GPT-3 is very cool, but I'm afraid it's not AGI, because it doesn't explain how the mind works.
I'm a minute in and he mentions induction, which refers to an impossible process of knowledge creation. He won't build AGI if he goes down that road.
The primary question in building AGI is: how does the mind work?
Yes. The primary task in building AGI is understanding the mind.
@tjaulow
And yours truly is working to create a course for beginners, so stay tuned for that!
@tjaulow
You bet. I started with a book called “HTML For Dummies.” Though not a fully-fledged programming language, HTML will feel like one, and the visual element will help you correct errors quickly. After that I learned CSS and JavaScript.
I think what’s good or bad is objective.
Regardless—yes, we can’t predict its preferences and goals either way.
Not at all! I’ve seen people successfully switch careers to coding in their forties and fifties (eg from law). I think people at any age and any career stage can do it.
@GoodNPlenty333 @nburn42 @Plinz @aifdn
I had already given a metric: that of whether moral knowledge solves a problem, and how many. But no there’s no metric to just solve all moral problems.
This is just another surface issue though. Like I said, we will keep having disagreements if we don’t agree on epistemology.
@GoodNPlenty333 @nburn42 @Plinz @aifdn
Not much hinges on this as we disagree on a thousand surface issues but maybe just one underlying issue: epistemology. Not much point in discussing unless we agree on epistemology.
We can then ask: but why were those genes better able to spread? Which seems to me analogous to what you're looking for (correct me if I'm wrong).
Well, it's a bit like asking: why do male peacocks have such elaborate tails?
One answer is: because female peacocks like them. The deeper answer is: because genes that happened to code for slightly more elaborate tails spread better.
I think it's the same with memes.
*watch on a heath ;-) But yes! A great thought experiment.
@GoodNPlenty333 @nburn42 @Plinz @aifdn
Guys don't get laid by fighting other guys, either.
@GoodNPlenty333 @nburn42 @Plinz @aifdn
I'm happy when I play video games. Video games don't get me laid nor do they make me rich.
@nburn42 @Plinz @GoodNPlenty333 @aifdn
Again, mental phenomena are emergent. We should explain them without referring to any underlying hardware. We know from computational universality that you can run the same phenomena as software on a laptop, even though laptops are not made of neurons.
@nburn42 @Plinz @GoodNPlenty333 @aifdn
When you speak of causes, you're giving an explanation. And an explanation along the lines of "it's all just neurons firing in some way" applies to any mental phenomenon (happiness, sadness, curiosity, depression, etc) and so it's a bad explanation: it may as well apply to none
@nburn42 @Plinz @GoodNPlenty333 @aifdn
Happiness is an emergent phenomenon. As such, it should be explained independently of the underlying hardware (brains/neurons).
@DoqxaScott @Plinz @GoodNPlenty333 @aifdn
I'm basically arguing against historicism applied to the future.
And the further we try to look into the future, the less reliable (and meaningful) our predictions become.
That's not to say that making predictions isn't useful!