Bernie Sanders on the Existential Risk of AI
This is the text of an email I shared with some of my friends and family recently, sharing my thoughts on the dangerous situation humanity is in
This is the text of an email I shared with some of my friends and family recently, sharing my thoughts on the dangerous situation humanity is in
We'd like to know how much limits on compute scaling will constrain AI R&D. This post attempts to clarify thinking about how to use economic models to explore the question, using Jones-style idea production functions and examining the automation feedback loop.
Humans are contacted by a mysterious type of being calling themselves “Galabren” who say they are “aelthous”. They’d like to know if we, too, are aelthous, since if we are they’d like to treat us well, as they care about aelthous things.
I hold a position of normative eliminativism: the view that no universal moral truths or common goods exist. My primary justification rests on the problem of metanormative regress that undermines moral realist frameworks. Any attempt to ground objective moral facts encounters an infinite regress: each justification for why certain moral principles hold requires further justification, ad infinitum. No bedrock foundation exists upon which to construct universally binding normative claims. The regress reveals that moral realism's central promise of objective moral truths is unfulfillable.
Santiago Ferris: Every single time environmentally minded people sit down and try to predict the course of capitalism, they come up with very short-term end-of-the-world scenarios. But capitalism escalates not just quantitatively but unpredictably qualitatively and finds its lines of flight from its logically predicted future wall. I like the idea that capitalism’s solutions to escaping death are actually qualitative, ergo creative, and impossible to predict.
I’ve been hearing people use different analogies to get a sense of how slow humans are from the perspective of a hypothetical silicon-based agentic being. Here are some popular ones: Humans are like plants to an AI; Humans are like glaciers to an AI; Humans are like rocks to an AI. Well, plants are a lot faster than rocks. Let’s try and see if we can get a better sense of how fast computers are relative to humans using this type of analogy.
Our existing intuitions about how to be a good student apply to LLMs very seamlessly. There's no ethical dilemma about academic honesty posed by LLMs which didn't already exist for anyone who had access to a smart person who is willing to try to do whatever you ask of them. Of course, some cheaters may find it a lot easier to cheat, since no one is watching their LLM interactions. Asking a smart person to help you cheat requires you to trust that person somewhat and involves some risk that they will refuse to help or judge you for cheating. But your own context dependent sensibilities around what is right are unchanged by the human or nonhuman nature of your assistant.
I just made a really good soup. Here's the recipe.
How are we arriving at this project and why is it interesting/useful? Well, let me introduce natural latents, something from johnswentworth which I still need to learn more about. The rough idea is that any intelligence might form similar abstractions about the world, the most useful and efficient abstractions.
I'm studying how people make categorization decisions informed by their aesthetic preferences.
Throwing paint at the wall to see what sticks
I'm choosing an initial topic for my research work over the next year which will lead into my senior thesis. I have two ideas and I'd like to know which one you find more interesting!
In an op-ed, Satya Benson ’26 critiques responses to recently published opinion pieces in the Record.
Over the past few days, lem has been over at misfin.org on gemini making the new internet mail protocol a reality. Yesterday, I sent the first misfin message as `mail@satch.xyz`. I want to jot down a few notes for reference as things move forward.
Way back in 1641, Rene Descartes dropped Meditations on First Philosophy, in which he famously claimed he was certain that he existed. But towards the end of his little book, he also made some pretty influential claims about the nature of the mind, saying it was totally separate from material substance. I think his arguments for this are bullshit, and I want to try to explain why.
While browsing geminispace, I came across this article by `negatethis`. Below is the text of the email I sent in reply, lightly edited. This is by no means a complete explanation of my thoughts on the subject; for example, I spend little to no time on the ethics of animal domestication.
The Human Experience of Good and Bad is Entirely an Aesthetic Experience
Poem in Two Parts
Summer passing by
Reflections on my time as part of the 2022 Arctic to Manhattan Semester
I've been having fun with Pixelmator Pro
Stuff I might study in college
Just some opinions
Ridiculously good music
From their opinion piece, 'Howard University’s removal of classics is a spiritual catastrophe'
From throughout the best literature
Not all who wander are lost
From Napoleon Dynamite
The government should give to small farms by cutting regulation and raising food prices while taxing big agriculture to help low-income households afford good food.
A short story
Poem in six stanzas and an envoi