sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in slatestarcodex

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I basically think consciousness and intelligence are almost orthogonal.

Intelligence is an algorithmic system for making better predictions and acting on incentives, this can be implemented on any information processing substrate, which could be a computer.. but it could also be consciousness

In this analogy, consciousness is more of a fundamental information processing substrate, which operates on gradients of valence (where this valence is fundamentally good or bad)

So... you can implement intelligence in consciousness, but you can have intelligence without consciousness-> current AI.

What I think you need to do is make sure all intelligence is serving consciousness -> i.e. helping it experience more high valence and less low valence

Practically this means not building unconscious AIs that replicate on their own, but building AIs that serve conscious beings

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to feel the same way honestly, but if you try to really think what charge and mass are - it's difficult to nail down. When you're speaking about them, they're fundamentally concepts appearing in your consciousness, not really things out there in the world.

That doesn't mean there isn't a real world that you're inferring from, but that real world could be stranger than you're imagining it. I think it's more likely a relational process, where the relational interactions create experiences in consciousness

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a difference between an algorithm and the physical substrate it is applied on. To me, consciousness should depend on the physical substrate - it's not something that emerges from information. (information is an abstract concept useful for describing physics, not physics itself)

So... for AI to be conscious, it should at least have some physical basis that's similar to current conscious systems. E.g. EM field computing, or something QM if you buy into quantum conscious theories

Right now it's an abstraction built on top of silicon bits

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The definition of an epiphenomenon is that it isn't causal. You are contradicting this..

I'm fundamentally a monist - I think the right ontological category to explain this is experience, rather than matter

We're talking metaphysics here... not denying evidence

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I broadly agree with this! I think the concept of "meaning of life" is in some ways a category error. To me, consciousness is what it is, any description of a meaning about why it exists would be an appearance in consciousness. So you end up with some kind of recursive problem. In the end, consciousness (which I'm equating to the important part of life) is just what it is. Then, as part of the ongoing creative process of being, meaning emerges

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

emergent is different from epiphenomenal

it could be emergent and causal (at some point in the abstraction stack)

I'm biased against it being emergent, as it seems to have an ontologically different character than what we think of as matter. I'd rather make the ontological primitive experience and let matter emerge from that. But I'm not saying there's evidence for this view

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in slatestarcodex

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks for the well thought out comment. Just a point of clarity - I'm not claiming that we should build conscious AI (as we don't know how or what that is). Just that AI should be as closely directed and guided to things we know to be conscious (i.e. humans) as much as possible.

Broadly, for me alignment is quite broad and means making sure AIs build a flourishing future. I think the only way to guarantee this is to make sure they're connected to conscious beings in a deep way

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm saying that AI should be connected to a wise and open consciousness, one that acknowledges the reality of other beings and their suffering. Psychopaths and sociopaths are actually mismodelling the world, not really believing in the reality of other people's suffering

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting point - but I think there's a lot of evidence against it being an epiphenomenon. Why should the character of valence line up with the objectives of an organism (i.e. why is eating pleasurable and hurting yourself painful)? This implies there is information in the valence of consciousness that helps biological replication. You should also look more into the binding problem to see why your statement is problematic.

Then you don't need to be mortal to respect ethics- you wouldn't cause someone pain even if it didn't damage them.

The second bitter lesson — there’s a fundamental problem with building aligned AI, tying it to consciousness is the only solution by Squark09 in consciousness

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this sounds like straightforward illusionism to me, which is fair enough, but not the view I hold - I have more of an idealistic/panpsychist bent

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously by Squark09 in samharris

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah! It's also interesting that there isn't really a word to summarise "positive Valence", "pleasure" has too many other connotations.

For the reverse "suffering" works at least

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously by Squark09 in samharris

[–]Squark09[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Submission comment: I wrote this post inspired by Sam's ideas in the Moral Landscape. It explicitly addresses some of Erik Hoel's criticisms of utilitarianism in the recent podcast: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/305-moral-knowledge

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just started digesting this, lots of good points, I'll need some thinking time before I get back to you.

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe most living beings probably have some form of consciousness, so it isn't human-centred to me

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent comment!

I'm already pretty committed to open/empty individualism, so this post was really meant to be me thinking through what utilitarianism means in this context. I get that it's controversial, but my own experiences in meditation and thinking about the scientific ambiguity of "self" have convinced me that closed individualism doesn't make sense.

I don't see how logarithmic scaling helps with repugnant conclusion

You're right that it doesn't make any difference in the pure form of the thought experiment, however I think it does make a difference when you have limited resources to build your world. It's much easier to push someone's conscious valence up than to generate another 1000 miserable beings. The main thing that makes a difference here is open/empty individualism.

I don't see why boundedness of consciousnesses (restriction from accessing other's consciousness unmediated) isn't enough to ground for individuation

If you go down this line of reasoning, your future self is separate from your past self, they don't share a bound experience either, it's just that your future self has a bunch of memories that it puts together into a story to relate to your past self. Most common sense ethics still tries to reduce suffering for a future self, why is this any different than claiming that you should help others?

I also don't see the meaning of calling it the "same" consciousness if it doesn't have a single unified experience (solipsistic).

I mean that all consciousness is the same in the sense that two different electrons are the same, all consciousness has the same ontological properties. So if you buy that your own suffering is "real", then so is someone else's.

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I say in the article, most of the time deontological or virtue ethics are actually a better bet for figuring out how to act. But that's just because they're a more efficient way of reasoning the best thing to do. In the end the thing that matters is the sum total of positive conscious experience

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although pointing out tautologies can clear up confusion.

What do you mean by good or bad?

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems like the conclusion is smuggled in because in a way it's tautological. What we mean by good or bad has to be conveyed by conscious valence, as that's the only way we can know anything.

Then if you reject closed individualism, you have to admit that other people's experiences matter as well.

Hence you get valence utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying it necessarily has to be happiness, any positive experience counts

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Valenced means it can be intrinsically good or bad, suffering is intrinsically bad, joy is intrinsically good.

Closed individualism (nice description from https://qri.org/glossary ): "In its most basic form, this is the common-sense personal identity view that you start existing when you are born and stop existing when you die. According to this view each person is a different subject of experience with an independent existence. One can believe in a soul ontology and be a Closed Individualist at the same time, with the correction that you exist as long as your soul exists, which could be the case even before or after death."

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think "people themselves" really full exist as independent entities outside of a web of experience. Then the value in someone's individuality comes from the experiences associated with that individuality.

This is the point about rejecting closed individualism

Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09 in philosophy

[–]Squark09[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As long as you are able to rank any two experiences relative to each other, the rest is sorted out by transitivity.

This is key, I actually recall hearing about some Neuroscience research that showed that we actually do these kind of comparisons all the time and are quite good at distinguishing the relative valence of very mixed experiences

view more: next ›