Scott has posted a discussion of the conversation about eugenics, framed as an actual conversation. I found it thought-provoking, as he made better arguments for both sides than I am used to seeing from either.
A: Given that mild, consensual forms of eugenics have historically led to extreme, horrifying versions, we have reason to believe the topic is a slippery slope which ought to be avoided outright.
B: This proves too much, as there are plenty of other ideas with similar history but much higher body counts. Thus eugenics ought to be carefully investigated rather than tabooed outright.
In the footnotes, he also presents C: Ehrlich did nothing wrong, and sometimes expected-value calculations don’t plan for the long tails. Democracy, as a form of distributed consent, is our best way to square this circle. This (correctly, IMO) leaves Scott uncomfortable. I appreciate that he included it.
I was not at all familiar with Ehrlich’s work, or with the quintessentially-McNamara history of Indian aid programs. Both add some valuable context for the argument. Oh, and I guess Scott talks about HBD a little bit; that’ll be catnip for this community, but it’s really secondary to the main thrust. Seriously, just read the article for a better version than anything I can write.
Discuss.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Related discussion of news that the Chinese are refusing to have children.
Plus obligatory Is Yudkowsky the False Prophet Ehrlich was?
Modern East Asian childhood seems like an absolutely horribly unpleasant experience for everyone involved- parent, child, teacher, etc.- from essentially birth-25. Compare this to rednecks, who really enjoy raising their kids at least from the start of elementary school(and red tribers have a replacement-ish fertility rate, in contrast to blue tribers).
It’s not a surprise that people refuse to reorient their lives and those of their entire family around doing horribly unpleasant things.
More options
Context Copy link
Why? Maybe because modern family life, especially modern Asian family life is nothing than endless pain and misery with no light spots and no happy end in sight?
Maybe when you tell people: "You spent half of your life as prisoner, now you have to spend the rest as prison guard", they will start doubting the whole idea?
Maybe the way to make people breed more is to find a way how to make family life more enjoyable and happier?
Or you can double down on "The Chairman Orders You To Breed For The Party And The Race!", this will certainly work this time.
And maybe it's easy to come up with a why that validates your political biases? Anyone's biases, really? Progressives don't want to subject their children to the horror of the environmental catastrophe, and Nazis tell me they won't bring Aryan children to suffer under the yoke of ZOG, and Yud says getting paperclipped is too cruel a fate, and Americans don't want to perpetuate corporate drudgery, and you've got your exploitation stories, and the Chinese have their millenia-old folksy sayings to the effect that the Confucian family unit is irredeemable Hell – sayings which have not dissuaded dozens of generations of their ancestors from acquiring the reputation of disgustingly fecund people in Western eyes. Maybe narratives ought to be checked.
Greer:
And on one hand, there are weird things about this specific form of antinatalism, but on the other I think the boring answer is the correct one. Children aren't worth it. To a childless person in a low-fertility atomized modern society, the benefits of having a child are either invalid (bloodline, dynasty, demographic competition with muh enemies) or unobservable, or dependent on other children in their environment; but costs are obvious and ruthlessly reinforced in public imagination by all responsible people, who only wish to warn you of the potential pitfalls.
Maybe the Party ought to make Kaplan mandatory reading or something. I don't know if that will trickle down to the policy level, though. All Kaplan says concretely is that our way of thinking about it is moronic, our anxious attempts at micromanaging life outcomes have extremely bad consequences, and we should take it easy. This doesn't, as a rule, persuade bureaucrats. Nor PMCs, nor women.
Also, roughly up until the Second Industrial Revolution, or whatever it's called, children normally were net economic producers after reaching the age of 8 or so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are substantial differences between overpopulation and AI though. Populations can and have decreased, thus the problem cannot be permanent. The simple answer to “there’s too many people, so we’re all going to die!” is to either expand your territory (colonization of space comes to mind) or have fewer kids.
AI isn’t the same animal. There’s little chance of keeping a true AGI from getting smarter. And because of economic incentives, everyone will want an AI as smart as possible. This means that AI isn’t something that can be easily undone by human decisions, and will thus keep growing in intelligence as history marches onward. Barring a catastrophic event — like a nuclear war— AI 50 years from now will certainly be smarter than AI as it exists now. So the AI risks wouldn’t go away, in fact they’ll get worse over time as AI itself becomes smarter and smarter.
Doesn't follow. Like Marcus says, past performance is no guarantee of future results; history happens only once. Industrial revolution has happened only once too. Sure, if our civilization collapses (like Ehrlich expected due to overpopulation), Homo Sapiens doesn't go extinct soon. But it isn't clear that a mature spacefaring civilization would be able to rise once more. We have consumed too much. Our era is qualitatively different.
This is just assuming the conclusion, actually ruling out the counterargument by definition: if an AGI is easy to keep under control, then it's just not TrueAGI.
No, I think economic incentives are in favor of the most usable AI, irrespective of smartness. Yud's paradigm insists on distinguishing «capabilities» and «alignment» and I think this is completely wrongheaded. AI isn't some powerful slave we're trying to break in, it is a bag of behaviors.
Doesn't follow, 50 years from now on we will probably have better automated monitoring. On the other hand, a quadrupled population necessarily eats more…
I agree there's a vastly better case for AI threat. My point is to show that it's still not ironclad; here, too, a lot rides on mere unexamined narrative.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Neither of us like Yudkowsky but that's a grossly unfair and unreasonable article. I think the median motte-user would read it and be swayed in the opposite direction. How is it any better than what LeCun puts on twitter? We both agree those are weak arguments that don't engage with the substance of Yud's stuff. Yud's position makes much more sense than Ehrlich's. It's still wrong but for much better reasons.
Some casual holes I can pick:
Food shortages are not intelligent and cannot plot against us
Yudkowsky's argument never relied on there being no diminishing returns on intelligence ever, only that returns on intelligence were very great
We have not been dealing with AI for millennia like we have with food shortages
Frankly I'd prefer a chad-hominem argument like 'we shouldn't take advice from a man who can't even lose weight - fix your waistline before saving the world'.
So you are saying that if Brad Pitt and other handsome and good looking Hollywood celebrities told you that AI will kill you soon unless you give up your GPU, you will salute, say "Yes, sir!" and immediately smash your high capacity assault computer with hammer?
You do not have to worry, it could happen soon.
No - why would anyone trust an actor, someone who is paid to speak the words of others? I'd trust a healthy philosopher over an obese one.
Edit: Still better would be more substantive counterarguments, such as those Daseindustries has made earlier.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link