I like that when this kinda went off the rails and turned into a seminar on evolutionary biology, EY was still totally capable of answering audience questions.
Nice to see another Eliezer Yudkowsky video, its been a long time since one was uploaded to the net. Unfortunately, there's not much here that he hasn't said before, and the audio is pretty bad after 38 minutes.
As for the level of awfulness caused by human extinction, this would only apply if you assume that there are no other intelligent civilizations in the Virgo supercluster, and that civilization will never re-evolve on Earth.
i have no axe to grind... just expressing a few points. he misses so many angles on the high-level positions he takes... here's one example: its not as though the inventor of the spear so to speak invents spear x and no iterative "inventions" occur thereafter. one takes the invented spear and reinvents the spear by improving upon it and creating tangentially related or several degrees removed iterations of it... and so on... until eventually creation x may essentially be an evolved or several degrees forward evolved version of the spear that appears to be something quite different in both form and function... yet nevertheless is a derivative of the spear but not necessarily directly derived from the spear the inventor originally created. i see his point... and what i think he mostly means. so my criticism perhaps doesn't apply in absolute. there is no "invent the spear" gene. he doesn't overtly posit this but he does imply it. invention has a lot to do with one's environment. he gives the bow and arrow / rock thrower example. what was the terrain like? what was the weather like? what game was to be hunted or enemies encountered? and so on. at the highest level its about gene perpetuation. each degree lower is a different "motivation"... but surely there is no motivation to create a spear per se. the motivation is rooted in a desired outcome. a spear is created because given the brain (software of the brain) at said time (assuming availability of resources in one's environment)... the brain creates the best solution it can given its potential / capacity. again, the brain that does this may not have the best genes per the entire gene pool for a given task or for creating thing x... other genes are at play... interplaying with the predominant genes involved in spear-making type work / creative processes. one scenario could be e.g. the person with the 100th "best" genes for spear making created the spear because he had genes more strongly rooted in certain motivations to be in a position of power or be recognized. in this case his genes were sufficient to create a spear but not the best genes for spear making so to speak... nevertheless, he created it because his desire for power and/or recognition motivated him to do xyz (e.g. work 15 hour days) the person with the "best" genes more specifically related to spear making tasks wouldn't, couldn't, or didn't want to do. i could go on. one point to be made is simple explanations are not always accurate. humans are complicated organisms. there are an innumerable amount of systems that depend on one another and affect outcomes in ways we don't fully understand.
you missed the point entirely the inventor of the spear might in fact improve upon the spear. But he is using his MIND to do the improving and not the spear. This is different from sharpening a rock using your fingers and using the sharpened rock to sharpen a second rock sharper than the first his position holds
In a way it happens already. We use computers to design the next generation of microprocessors. Since processors are hardware, the recursive improvement is not very direct.
+NNOTM millions yeras? did you just put a random number out? a million, sure, or thirty. you could say we sort of have primitive colonization methods today.
+Nnotm cosmic silence suggests the chance is very low that'll happen in a million years. But I guess an extermination event reduces the odds from non-zero to zero.
I want the money to be spent on rescuing dogs. So I consider myself to be neither an effective altruist nor a philanthropist. What I consider myself is a pan sentient altruist.
I like that when this kinda went off the rails and turned into a seminar on evolutionary biology, EY was still totally capable of answering audience questions.
Here in 2023 it is fun/scary to go back and see how prophetic Eliezer was/is.
we went from lizard in 2013 to chimp in 2023. wonder how far itll be in 2033
“AI advantages: understandable code” 💀 18:00
Audio becomes inaudible around the 38 minute mark
It comes back a minute later
Nice to see another Eliezer Yudkowsky video, its been a long time since one was uploaded to the net. Unfortunately, there's not much here that he hasn't said before, and the audio is pretty bad after 38 minutes.
As for the level of awfulness caused by human extinction, this would only apply if you assume that there are no other intelligent civilizations in the Virgo supercluster, and that civilization will never re-evolve on Earth.
So what does he mean by "brain software"?
STOP RUMMAGING AROUND IN YOUR BOOKBAG .
i have no axe to grind... just expressing a few points.
he misses so many angles on the high-level positions he takes... here's one example: its not as though the inventor of the spear so to speak invents spear x and no iterative "inventions" occur thereafter. one takes the invented spear and reinvents the spear by improving upon it and creating tangentially related or several degrees removed iterations of it... and so on... until eventually creation x may essentially be an evolved or several degrees forward evolved version of the spear that appears to be something quite different in both form and function... yet nevertheless is a derivative of the spear but not necessarily directly derived from the spear the inventor originally created. i see his point... and what i think he mostly means. so my criticism perhaps doesn't apply in absolute. there is no "invent the spear" gene. he doesn't overtly posit this but he does imply it. invention has a lot to do with one's environment. he gives the bow and arrow / rock thrower example. what was the terrain like? what was the weather like? what game was to be hunted or enemies encountered? and so on. at the highest level its about gene perpetuation. each degree lower is a different "motivation"... but surely there is no motivation to create a spear per se. the motivation is rooted in a desired outcome. a spear is created because given the brain (software of the brain) at said time (assuming availability of resources in one's environment)... the brain creates the best solution it can given its potential / capacity. again, the brain that does this may not have the best genes per the entire gene pool for a given task or for creating thing x... other genes are at play... interplaying with the predominant genes involved in spear-making type work / creative processes. one scenario could be e.g. the person with the 100th "best" genes for spear making created the spear because he had genes more strongly rooted in certain motivations to be in a position of power or be recognized. in this case his genes were sufficient to create a spear but not the best genes for spear making so to speak... nevertheless, he created it because his desire for power and/or recognition motivated him to do xyz (e.g. work 15 hour days) the person with the "best" genes more specifically related to spear making tasks wouldn't, couldn't, or didn't want to do. i could go on. one point to be made is simple explanations are not always accurate. humans are complicated organisms. there are an innumerable amount of systems that depend on one another and affect outcomes in ways we don't fully understand.
you missed the point entirely
the inventor of the spear might in fact improve upon the spear. But he is using his MIND to do the improving and not the spear.
This is different from sharpening a rock using your fingers and using the sharpened rock to sharpen a second rock sharper than the first
his position holds
Can an intel-processor simulate an intel processor. And use GA to evolve it a bit.
Xiclotrode Then it can evolve itself! Intelligence explosion is allready here!!!
In a way it happens already. We use computers to design the next generation of microprocessors. Since processors are hardware, the recursive improvement is not very direct.
Why should survival of intelligent life imply spread across the universe?
It's very likely that in, say, a million years, humans either no longer exist or will have figured out how to colonize space.
+NNOTM millions yeras? did you just put a random number out? a million, sure, or thirty. you could say we sort of have primitive colonization methods today.
wasdwasdedsf I just chose an arbitrary sufficiently large number to have those be the only two possibilites with a significant probability.
+Nnotm cosmic silence suggests the chance is very low that'll happen in a million years. But I guess an extermination event reduces the odds from non-zero to zero.
+ohedd No it does not. Cosmic silence suggests that intelligent life is rare. You haven't taken observational selection effect into account.
I want the money to be spent on rescuing dogs. So I consider myself to be neither an effective altruist nor a philanthropist. What I consider myself is a pan sentient altruist.
+Nicki LovesDogs
Are the dogs sentient altruists?
Craig Travis Yes they are!
+Nicki LovesDogs This is called "Hacking the thought-experiment" and is not a valid move ;)
Max Kocher I can "hack" any thought I want to. That is the beauty of individualism.
It's too speculative for me. Very strong unfounded extrapolations all over the place. I enjoy the LessWrong blog very much, so I'm a bit disappointed.
+qorilla which parts unfounded?
the hour talk isnt long enough to discuss the details but i assure you they exist